Missouri Bill Would Put Teachers On Sex Offender Registry For Affirming Trans Kids' Identities

[Twilight Hue]

How is a Democratic Socialist, or even a standard socialist, harming or exploiting anyone? Do you not support family values? Are you anti-social?

Socialism believes in the social contract. Government's are associations of, by, and for The People. Their job is to help and protect the citizens, and promote individual freedom and prosperity.

Freeing trade/corporations from legislating restricting harmful or exploitative practices is not government tyranny. Government's primary job is to serve the public interest, not the bottom line of banks and corporations.

Being a communist yourself. You should know the answer.

It's what those systems lead to after the honeymoon is over.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Sounds like the same thing the nanny state democrats are doing.

Tell me what's so fascist here?

This was in response to, "If you don't want to get corrected by a Canadian then don't post stuff so obviously wrong.
According to the first link there have been socialists in office since 1847. But your doomsday prediction been failing for about 180 years.
Are you going to denying that the Republicans are fascist theocrats who are axing the liberties of women, lgbt amd certain religious groups? Are going to accept they love a treasonous whelp who has a long history of fraud and celebrating dictators?"

Please show us any "nanny state democrats" who are axing the liberties of women, lgtb and certain religious groups. Show us "nanny state democrats" who support a dude who fomented an insurrection.

 

[Valjean]

Being a communist yourself. You should know the answer.

It's what those systems lead to after the honeymoon is over.

How much pro-social legislation must a society have to be considered socialist, in your opinion? Has socialism led to tyranny and insecurity in Western Europe? Is Scandinavia a repressive dictatorship?
Both the USSR, Nazi Germany and possibly Fascist Italy called themselves socialist, but I don't think it was socialism that was the problem there.

You get repression and dictatorship when democracy is undermined, freedom of speech, conscience and media is suppressed, as well as government transparency.
You get autocratic government when capitalism is unchecked, ie: "free market," or, as Mussolini put it: "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power."
That sounds much like Neoliberal capitalism, less like socialism.

Q: Why do you think I'm communist? Do you know the difference between communism and socialism?

 

[metis]

No not really , in light not one single Democrat is openly opposed to having registered socialists as accepted and embraced members in their own party.

Do you know what a "socialist" is? Any clue?

 

[Unfettered]

How different is that from "promote the general welfare"?

They are both wispy and poor; they are both "open doors" for rights abuses. And neither is the purpose of the US government, as defined in our primal law:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,"

 

[Unfettered]

In my view one moment you are pretending to call out both using a false equivalence you can't substantiate - flip.

The next moment you are only prepared to call out Biden - flop.

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: – “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Source: Oath of Office

Now some questions for you.
1. Why do you think the US has a constitution if not to protect the common folk from tyranny?
2. How do you alledge that Biden is failing to carry out the constitution exactly (remember its your claim so you have to provide the evidence in my view).

I'll answer your questions when you show good faith by addressing mine.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Do you know what a "socialist" is? Any clue?

I'm sure a socialist in your view is a harmless fluffy puppy dog that everyone loves and itvwill love you back.

Me? I'll just point out Greece, Venezuela, and countries like Finland and Norway as prime examples of socialism and what it had brought to the table of those countries.

 

[fantome profane]

Me? I'll just point out Greece, Venezuela, and countries like Finland and Norway as prime examples of socialism

So even by you definition socialism is compatible with democracy. If a country votes in a socialist government they can just vote it out.

But if you vote a fascist into office, that is the end.

 

[Twilight Hue]

So even by you definition socialism is compatible with democracy. If a country votes in a socialist government they can just vote it out.

But if you vote a fascist into office, that is the end.

Some socialist elements are compatible with a free representative republic. Things like schools and the mail service.

It's the legal mechanism of socialism that concerns me that places a country under freedom killing restrictions and regulation that pretty much will choke a democracy to death.

 

[metis]

and countries like Finland and Norway as prime examples of socialism and what it had brought to the table of those countries.

I'd take them any day over what we have here in the States as I'm envious of what my cousins in Sweden have with their "cradle to grave security".

Maybe do some reading: Nordic model - Wikipedia

 

[Guitar's Cry]

They are both wispy and poor; they are both "open doors" for rights abuses. And neither is the purpose of the US government, as defined in our primal law:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,"

During the American Revolution, the Articles of Confederation were ratified as the first founding document of a United States government. It gave states nearly all the power, to the point that when Congress was not in session, the states had the power to take control (Article X). It lasted (if I remember right) 8 years. The realization that a strong federal government was needed to secure rights was the impetus towards the Constitution we currently have, which states that securing the blessings of liberty and promote the general welfare is the purpose of the document.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I'd take them any day over what we have here in the States as I'm envious of what my cousins in Sweden have with their "cradle to grave security".

Maybe do some reading: Nordic model - Wikipedia

Yeah those systems will be fine for a while, until things bottom out and implodes.

It's why these countries went towards market economies.

 

[Valjean]

Some socialist elements are compatible with a free representative republic. Things like schools and the mail service.

It's the legal mechanism of socialism that concerns me that places a country under freedom killing restrictions and regulation that pretty much will choke a democracy to death.

I'm curious. What are some of these democracy choking regulations,or types of regulations, that you're worried about?

I usually think of socialism as democracy on steroids. In socialist businesses, for example, from large corporations like Mondragon to your local health food co-op, we see égalitarian workplaces, good wages and benefits, profit sharing, a lot of input and control from workers, strong safety regulations, &c.
On the other hand, The neoliberal capitalism here in the US has outsourced manufacturing, closed plants, put people out of work whilst cutting social services, stagnated wages, cut benefits, defunded the Occupation and Health Administration (OSHA), undermined unions, passed "right-to-work" laws, undermined environmental regulations, and created a society of two worker families, unaffordable housing, education, healthcare, pharmaceuticals, and childcare; homeless people begging on the streets, &c. With the rich getting richer, growing poverty and a shrinking middle class.

This Neoliberal Capitalism over the past 40 years has not produced the prosperity and freedom I hear acclaimed from the corporate-owned media monopolies here in the US.

 

[Unfettered]

During the American Revolution, the Articles of Confederation were ratified as the first founding document of a United States government. It gave states nearly all the power, to the point that when Congress was not in session, the states had the power to take control (Article X). It lasted (if I remember right) 8 years. The realization that a strong federal government was needed to secure rights was the impetus towards the Constitution we currently have, which states that securing the blessings of liberty and promote the general welfare is the purpose of the document.

The Declaration of Independence precedes the Articles of Confederation, constitutes the US's foundation law, and is the first law in the US code.

See US CODE

No law in the US transcends or supersedes the Declaration of Independence and, as such, all laws must conform to its assertions. If they don't, they are illicit by the moral and legal standard established in the Declaration. The fact of such illicitness, where applicable, clearly has no bearing on whether or not the People realize the wrongness of such laws, whether or not the representatives of the People establish such laws as law, or whether or not the rights of the People, or some faction of it, are abused thereby.

 

[Wandering Monk]

The Declaration of Independence precedes the Articles of Confederation, constitutes the US's foundation law, and is the first law in the US code.

See US CODE

No law in the US transcends or supersedes the Declaration of Independence and, as such, all laws must conform to its assertions. If they don't, they are illicit by the moral and legal standard established in the Declaration. The fact of such illicitness, where applicable, clearly has no bearing on whether or not the People realize the wrongness of such laws, whether or not the representatives of the People establish such laws as law, or whether or not the rights of the People, or some faction of it, are abused thereby.

The Declaration of Independence states the principles on which our government, and our identity as Americans, are based. Unlike the other founding documents, the Declaration of Independence is not legally binding, but it is powerful.

The Declaration of Independence

Español We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Preamble to the Declaration of Independence The Declaration of Independence...

www.archives.gov

 

[Guitar's Cry]

The Declaration of Independence precedes the Articles of Confederation, constitutes the US's foundation law, and is the first law in the US code.

See US CODE

No law in the US transcends or supersedes the Declaration of Independence and, as such, all laws must conform to its assertions. If they don't, they are illicit by the moral and legal standard established in the Declaration. The fact of such illicitness, where applicable, clearly has no bearing on whether or not the People realize the wrongness of such laws, whether or not the representatives of the People establish such laws as law, or whether or not the rights of the People, or some faction of it, are abused thereby.

You missed my point. The Constitution was created to uphold the ethos of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," since it became apparent that a stronger central government was needed for this.

 

[Unfettered]

The Declaration of Independence states the principles on which our government, and our identity as Americans, are based. Unlike the other founding documents, the Declaration of Independence is not legally binding, but it is powerful.

The Declaration of Independence

Español We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Preamble to the Declaration of Independence The Declaration of Independence...

www.archives.gov

It is definitely binding, though not used in the same way the Constitution is used in case law. If it is not binding, then we do not have natural rights and the Constitution may be leveraged to destroy them, which has been done.

 

[Unfettered]

You missed my point. The Constitution was created to uphold the ethos of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," since it became apparent that a stronger central government was needed for this.

Well, many back then misunderstood the legal significance of the Declaration just as many today do, which is why the original Constitution did not uphold the ethos of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That had to be added in under protest. Apparently, it didn't take long for the representatives of the colonists to forget that the only just purpose of government was to protect the rights of human beings, as asserted in the Declaration. What a worthless document the Constitution would be without what it obtained from the Declaration!

We render the Declaration non-binding at our own peril.

 

[Wandering Monk]

It is definitely binding, though not used in the same way the Constitution is used in case law. If it is not binding, then we do not have natural rights and the Constitution may be leveraged to destroy them, which has been done.

Ever read the Preamble to the Constitution? The Constitution protects those rights:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

 

[Shadow Wolf]

If I were rowing ashore to some new would-be home country and read that on the welcome sign, I'd turn around immediately and row away as fast as I could. I'm grateful to live in the US, where the sole job of government is to secure the unalienable rights of each human being within its boundaries. That the US government doesn't to its job perfectly is not cause to condemn the integrity of the foundation; rather it is cause for constant vigilance and continual struggle against other well-meaning, but inescapably destructive ideals. At least, though, the foundation is discernible, and not the wispy abstraction "serve the public interest," under which amorphous ideal countless lives have been snuffed out unjustly over the centuries.

Actually the US Government is Constitutionally bound to promote the general welfare of the public. I don't know where you got this "sole job" idea from but it has never been how things are done here.