Liberal Forum

RichClem » 19 Jul 2014 7:47 am » wrote: Gosh, I want to address Socialism as 1) secondarily defined in one prestigious dictionary and as actual Socialists themselves have applied it in the real world?

Really? Where? When?

The last I saw, you were using a definition by which every country on Heritage's list is socialist. Here's that definition is, emphasis YOURS:

socialism
Syllabification: so·cial·ism
Pronunciation: /ˈsōSHəˌlizəm

noun
1A political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/de ... /socialism

You have used multiple conflicting definitions, and made up at least one out of whole cloth - my challenge of which resulted in you posting the definition above.

When Heritage finally let's you know what to parrot, get back to us, kid. This much is for sure: The easiest way to have Heritage and their shills stop calling you socialist, is to manage your state-planned economy well.

Here, let's juxtapose what one of you morons recently claimed as a definition, with whatever you are currently claiming in this ten minute time frame, clem:

Str8tEdge » 19 Jul 2014 2:53 am » wrote: Basically, any country with private property rights is not socialist, *******.

Your defintion? Regulation = socialism. His? There's no such thing as socialism, if there are any private property rights in a country.

You girls have a meeting, huh? I mean, it's amusing, y'all being walking lob generators. But it grows tiresome, you mediocre spewbot.