When Socialism Turns Deadly

[Twfan55]

Article about socialism and some of the problems with UH

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=58025

Check it out. I personally liked it.

[Haakon]

Typical scaremongering nonsense spouted by a person without rudmentary knowledge about what hes talking about.

The very fact that all the nordic countries proves him wrong is something he is either ignorant about or just happy to ignore.

[Shaun]

Typical scaremongering nonsense spouted by a person without rudmentary knowledge about what hes talking about.

The very fact that all the nordic countries proves him wrong is something he is either ignorant about or just happy to ignore.

Nordic countries aren't actually properly socialist, though. "Socialist" in mainstream politics mostly refers to moderate leftism - certainly not anything that a true socialist would identify with.

[Haakon]

Nordic countries aren't actually properly socialist, though. "Socialist" in mainstream politics mostly refers to moderate leftism - certainly not anything that a true socialist would identify with.

Well to begin with the terms conservative, liberal, and socialist have (imo)different meaning in Europe and the US. A conservative politician in Scandinavia would probably be the same as a liberal in the US.

The Nordic countries has social democracy with is based on the socialist model but still different. I cant seam to recall there being any socialist countries in Europe at all, and when refering to lets say Scandinavia I have heard Americans use the term 'sosialist'. Where I live we have a moderate leftist party and they are quite, quite different from the social democrats.

[MasterOfNone]

Any country that redistributes wealth through the use of force is socialist in some way or another (and of course in varying degrees). I think that is a sound test. I am not aware of any European countries - inc. the UK - that do not do this, and the US is also going that way.

But no doubt others will disagree

[Shaun]

Well to begin with the terms conservative, liberal, and socialist have (imo)different meaning in Europe and the US. A conservative politician in Scandinavia would probably be the same as a liberal in the US.

Not really. Some countries are more polarised than others, so will have a term for one group of people at one end of the spectrum and another term for those at the opposite. In the USA, the terms are 'liberal' and 'conservative'.

The Nordic countries has social democracy with is based on the socialist model but still different. I cant seam to recall there being any socialist countries in Europe at all, and when refering to lets say Scandinavia I have heard Americans use the term 'sosialist'. Where I live we have a moderate leftist party and they are quite, quite different from the social democrats.

Everywhere east of the Iron Curtain was socialist.

Any country that redistributes wealth through the use of force is socialist in some way or another (and of course in varying degrees). I think that is a sound test. I am not aware of any European countries - inc. the UK - that do not do this, and the US is also going that way.

But no doubt others will disagree

By that definition, every nation in the world is socialist, because we all must pay taxes, and if we don't then we are punished.

Or are you against taxes?

[Kiljan Arslan]

Any country that redistributes wealth through the use of force is socialist in some way or another (and of course in varying degrees).

Well that means that America has always been Socialist.

[Aziel]

Nordic countries aren't actually properly socialist, though. "Socialist" in mainstream politics mostly refers to moderate leftism - certainly not anything that a true socialist would identify with.

Excectly.

[Каие]

Typical scaremongering nonsense spouted by a person without rudmentary knowledge about what hes talking about.

The very fact that all the nordic countries proves him wrong is something he is either ignorant about or just happy to ignore.

For once we agree.

[Dr. Croccer]

For once we agree.

Same here. It's not just the Norse but the Dutch and Swiss (I think) as well. All of which have living standards similair or better to the US.

[JP226]

The very fact that all the nordic countries proves him wrong is something he is either ignorant about or just happy to ignore.

How does that prove him wrong? If anything it proves him right given their tax rates.

[Haakon]

How does that prove him wrong? If anything it proves him right given their tax rates.

"Reduced personal liberty"


We have more economic, political, and social freedoms than anywhere else on the planet. He mentioned obesity in his article, over here unhealthy stuff costs more so people eat less of it. The result is that you will hardly see any obese people.

Our model works and hes questioning it with crazy logic.

[Cavalier]

I agree, the man is wrong. Sorry for no quote, but he wrote about how we are forced to pay for people to be cared of. C'mon, forced and forced, we do it because we expect people to do the same for us. Give and get.

[removeduser_426582376423734]

When all people get past the virtuous ideology of full freedom in all quarters, we might be able to move onto a compromise between the two systems.

[Chlodwig I.]

Just one question do americans make diffrence

between social democracies like the Scandinavian countrys
and socialist countries (USSR, East Germany... as they still existed)

[Centurion-Lucius-Vorenus]

Theres an ad for a Shirt that has a picture of Hillary Clinton that reads 'Re-defeat Communism 08.'

I Immediately X'd out that source, and eliminated it from my mind.

[Kiljan Arslan]

Wow World Net Daily place of right wing nut jobs who think Harry Potter teaches Satanism!

[Kiljan Arslan]

Hillary a Communist?!

[Twfan55]

Here is the part that hit me the most, for those that didnt read it.

Forcing one person to bear the burden of health care costs for another is not only a moral question, but a major threat to personal liberty. Think about all the behaviors and lifestyles that can lead to illness and increase the burden on taxpayers. A daily salt intake exceeding 6 grams can lead to . A high-fat diet and high alcohol intake can also lead to diabetes. A sedentary lifestyle can lead to several costly diseases such as hypertension, diabetes and heart failure.

There are many other behaviors that lead to a greater health care burden, but my question is how much control over your life are you willing to give government in the name of reducing these costs? Would you want government to regulate how much salt you use? What about government deciding how much fat and alcohol you consume? There are immense beneficial health effects of a daily 30-minute aerobic exercise. Would you support government-mandated exercise?

You might argue that it's none of government's business how much fat, salt or alcohol a person consumes, even if it has adverse health care cost implications. I'd ask: Wouldn't the same reasoning apply to helmet laws and proposed obesity laws? Last year, The Child Nutrition Promotion and School Lunch Protection Act was introduced in Congress. It's a measure to prevent schools from serving "junk foods" such as pizza, burgers and French fries. If the government protects children from "unhealthy" meals at school, would you want government also to protect them from unhealthy meals at home?

[Kiljan Arslan]

Yes a site that says Gays shouldn't be able to adopt defends personal liberty.