"...now others who would want to harm innocent Americans or facilities it would be unacceptable, I don't know if you're going to use the word 'terrorist'."
So, it isn't just abortion clinic bombers that dodge that title. Just make sure whatever you're bombing has no political affiliation and you're not a terrorist!

I think the problem here may just be that she doesn't quite understand the word 'terrorist', she has the gist of it but not the whole picture. Even if she considers abortion to be sinful and wrong her words don't necessarily mean she condones those who bomb abortion clinics.

That being said, she could just as easily condone it. At the very least, I think she probably has mixed feelings about it.

The dark channel? Come now, videosift, I thought we were above this kind of thing.

>> ^omnistegan:
$10 says she votes for him in 2008.


You're on! And since there is a possibility of her not voting at all, I suppose that you'll have to receive $15.00 if you come out on top in this.
Now we just have to figure out how to get past the privacy of the electoral system to learn who winds up winning and we're in business.

>> ^imstellar28:

I read your post again, as you suggested, and my post still stands. You asked for a defense of the basis of socialism and went on to say that the basis of socialism was collectivism. A defense of the ends of a component of a system is a valid defense of the component. You did not, however, ask for a defense of the basis of collectivism.
Collectivism is simply production and distribution being controlled by... Well, everyone rather than private production and distribution. In collectivism it is assumed that objects in their natural state belong to everyone in common, an individual that collects all wild potatoes, hordes them, and refuses to give them up unless he is given some sort of compensation can be considered to be stealing from society as a whole when operating under this assumption. The ends of collectivism is ensuring everyone has a fair shot at seeing a portion of what it is considered that they own, the means is preventing theft from society.

Rape does not deal with production or distribution. Even if we operate in a system opposite to collectivism, that is to say private production or distribution, there is STILL nothing forbidding the rape of little girls.

>> ^imstellar28
Additionally I think you may be confusing some of your terminology, if not outright contradicting yourself. Democracy certainly is not the majority imposing its will over the minority as many socialist, capitalist, laissez-faire and even anarchic society qualify as forms of democracy.
Perhaps you're thinking of majority rule in place of democracy, seeing as it is often used in conjunction with democracy, however even if such is the case although a socialist society could be formed through majority rule it could just as easily be put into place by a minority, an individual, or through completely unanimous means.

As for the rest of your two posts, I hate to break it to you but there are quite a few people that state proudly that they are socialists, not to mention a number of countries and political factions. That being said, inside the United States there is still a great deal of hate and fear for ideals and idealists with any views so much as resembling communism, I seem to recall Glen Beck pleading that someone remove the 'left-wing communists who are ruining our country' when referring to senators with left wing voting habits. It is this hate and fear which prevents many from claiming ties to socialist views, and is also the reason Obama needs to distance himself from socialism.
Not that Obama is socialist. Even if he gets everything on his platform put through the United States will still be far more right wing than Canada, which has a mixed but certainly not socialist political system in place.

As for the claim that no one has ever defended collectivism, besides the paragraph I wrote above this post, there's always(insert results of a google search for "defense of collectivism" here). If I am to, like you, down vote based on what I view to be an incorrect statement then I most certainly have to down vote your comments based solely on that.


I'm not about to attack your (I'm guessing Ayn Rand inspired?) beliefs, but the way your argument against socialism is framed... Well, let's just say it needs a lot of work.

That's odd... I've always thought of the internet as being more like a truck.

Huh. Actually, now that I think of it, internet-as-truck doesn't sound too far off from how Myanmar's 'net was described.

@imstellar28
In defense of Collectivism: A family is a collective. The collective finances of a family are often put towards items that will benefit the family more than any individual within the family, and manual labour, such as chores, benefit the family as a whole. For instance, I buy plates for the family and when it comes to cleaning them I clean more than I personally sullied.
The members of a family are also interdependent, even parents come to depend on their children once they reach old age. All these aspects of family life are inherently collectivist.
To eliminate all collectivist elements from a family dynamic would likely result in an early death for any child born into such a household.

There, I have now formed a defense for the basis of socialism off the top of my head. Feel free to describe how I am evil now.