 | | Re: Trying to understand —Steve Bliss
|
| | | (...) I think you need to recheck things a bit. The US has a number of Socialist features. 'Socialist' isn't a black-and-white, yes-or-no thing. Steve (24 years ago, 17-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Trying to understand Socialism —Scott Edward Sanburn
|
| | | | | Steve, (...) Well, maybe what Bill is saying that this county wasn't started out socialistic, but it seems to be getting there. Socialism is a black and white definition, however. Any Political Science / Government class will tell you. Scott S. (...) (24 years ago, 17-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Trying to understand —Lindsay Frederick Braun
|
| | | | (...) A country can have socialist features and still not be Socialist. It's sort of like "Space" vs. "space"...capital-S has a very specific meaning, while small-s is more malleable. Semantics...with a small s. ;) <dredge...dredge...> best LFB (24 years ago, 17-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Trying to understand —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | (...) And that would mean that 'Socialist' is just a descriptive label, without much specific meaning. Sort of like calling the leader of a country 'President' doesn't mean the country is a Democracy based on inalienable human-rights and personal (...) (24 years ago, 20-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
