Terry said:
again, too literal. First DMO'C implies Dems are socialists because they
promote mandatory service, and forced servitude is common in socialist
countries.
-------------
That's merely fuzzy thinking. "Involuntary Servitude" is slavery
without pay. Everyone has to work to eat, and to do one's equal
share of the work. If you're paid, it doesn't matter if you HAVE
to or not, you have to work to afford to live, even in the simplest
human society or situation, the earth extracts that, and we merely
decide socially how the burden is divided! The Rich want the rest
of us to do THEIR work FOR them so THEY don't HAVE to, this is the
essence of slavery! They want you to do their work for NO PAYMENT,
in other words, as well as your own for the usual rate. Thus if they
pay you only for yours, then they pay you half what they should,
and pay themselves what they DO NOT EARN!! This is the meaning of
ALL wealth, NOT HAVING TO WORK BECAUSE YOU HAVE SLAVES! NO person
does not have to work merely because they have some magical "money",
they ALL rely on the rest of us doing ALL THEIR WORK *FOR* THEM AS
THEIR SLAVES!! Anyone who wants to be able to "not have to work again"
ACTUALLY means that they wish to ENSLAVE some of the RESt of us who
DO HAVE TO WORK! Thus ALL striving after wealth so that one does not
have to work is actually the desire and intent to ENSLAVE OTHERS!!
Pretty feeble argument. So I point out Israel has compulsory
military service (and sure as shit aint socialist; there are plenty of
european countries that do too IIRC), easily flattening the weak
implication. So DMO'C turns around with his "just because socialists do
it doesnt mean non-socialist cant" argument. In other words, doing
something a socialist does, does not necessarily make you a socialist,
which is pretty much in direct contradiction to his first statement.
--------------------------------
Israel DOES have a Socialist system! They have nationalized health,
education, retirement, vacations, and support for those who cannot
work. And MOST of Europe certainly *IS* Socialist!
too literal Steve. The implication (a-la DMO'Cs feeble argument) is that
republicans must therefore be islamic, which they are not. ergo its a
stupid thing to imply. see above
-----------------------------
Few would be so stupid as to assume that. The implied allusion was
clearly that those two religions are both sexually backward Fundy
religions of the Abrahamic stripe, well known for being sexually
insipid and moronic. Only someone like I heard on a radio show the
other day ranting that the Mormons should all be taken to Guantanamo
because he assumed that "Mormons" were some kind of American "Muslim"
would assume something like that, and only out of abyssmal ignorance,
despite the totally accidental aptness of that claim against Mormonism,
because they are quite nearly as Fundy as the nuttyist Islamics!!