On 22 May, 15:38, aracari  wrote:
> 'nomer.23' wrote thus:
>
>
>
> >On May 22, 11:36 pm, aracari  wrote:
> >> 'abelard' wrote thus:
>
> >> >On Fri, 22 May 2009 13:28:11 퍝, aracari
> >> > wrote:
>
> >> >>'Sam Nelson' wrote thus:
>
> >> >>>In article , spamtrap@váilable.here.com
> >> >>>says...
> >> >>>> lol.  It's just a coincidence ...honest ...like the last time they
> >> >>>> were in office until 1979!   It's sooooo unfair to blame them!
> >> >>>> You see, it's a *global* recession and a *worldwide* banking
> >> >>>> crises.
>
> >> >>>For the current state of the nation to be the fault of socialists, there'd
> >> >>>have to be a socialist government.  There isn't.
>
> >> >>Why don't you tell us what *you* believe is a *socialist govt*?
>
> >> >well, it isn't all the other socialist governments that have failed..> >> >it's the next socialist government...until that also fails....
> >> >then that is added to the list of 'that wasn't *real*(tm) socialism'
>
> >> >regards
>
> >> These folks seem to have a very narrow view of what socialism
> >> is based upon the writings of its glorious prophets. They should
> >> attend to what it always is in practice...
>
> >After 16 years in Communism and another 20 in Socialism, dare I say
> >that I do know which is which, dear friend.
> >It is abelard that needs to learn about social governance, and which
> >is totalitarian and why. I know, that he hasn't got the faintest idea
> >of
> >what is supposed to replace socialism and how this new thing of his,
> >will supposedly_not_be_socialist.
>
> >C'mon, put him to the test I dare you!
> >Ask him to show how his new system will not be socialist!
>
> I've no idea what "new system" you refer to.
>
> As I said elsewhere, it can be argued that *any system of govt*
> is essentially socialist. But within that, it has to be recognised
> that govt is both necessary and desirable.
>
> It therefore comes down to ideology and what level of govt one
> has. That's where socialism falls down flat on the floor.

Pure socialism may not work but then it has also been evident that
pure capitalism doesn't work either. For any government to "work" it
has to have elemnts of both. However, most of the time these arguments
are nothing to do with the real meanings of the words, and more to do
with football-fan-style alignment to one camp or the other. The sad
part comes when some people's only argument appears to be "that's
stupid" and things descend to pantomime "tis / tisn't" nonsense.