[Shawnski]

Originally Posted by Chill Cosby

<snip, but your quotes are below>

I'll bite. Libertarian here. You know... fiscally responsible, socially liberal. Should actually sound familiar with many here, yet few claim to be.

Out of curiosity, why is socialism a bad thing?

It isn't. As a concept it CAN work, until you start to include anyone that has not volunteered to take part. It is at that moment that it breaks down due to the imposition of will from one or many over one or many.

Q: What is the difference between Capitalism and Socialism?
A: Capitalism is the exploitation of one person by another person. Socialism is the exact opposite.

Jokes aside, capitalism is voluntary, socialism isn't. The former can be tainted BY socialism and the end result is crony-capitalism, or crapitalism as we now have.

Why do people look at any sane political stance and think bad of the people affiliated with it?

Sane.... political.... stance.... Three interesting words.

Sane, one definition is "reasonable, sensible". Question is... to whom? Another definition is: "able to anticipate and appraise the effect of one's actions" Now this definition is where I believe one person's sanity becomes another's insanity. If someone has been educated in a manner that they believe yields sane opinions, they still can be insane as they have failed to anticipate nor appraised the effect of those opinions.

Political, love this one and you can pick your poison here. Merriam's has what I think it the most accurate definition (for politics): "the art or science concerned with winning and holding control over a government " 'Nuf said.

Stance: "The attitude of a person or organization towards something; a standpoint". Standpoint can be further defined as: "The position from which someone is able to view a scene or an object"

Attitude and position. Neither of these are factually based, they are learned (or more likely, taught).
____

Facts and data. I will argue those every time over "sane political stance".

...people get so painfully focused on money, and low taxes, and individual needs. What's wrong with higher taxes? Free education and day care?

Individual needs are CENTRAL. Somewhere, out there, SOMEONE needs a heart transplant. That person is an individual and it is a critical need. He/she may have a common need to others, however it is individual in nature.

Everything comes down to the individual, and their needs. Although their needs may be categorized or grouped into sections, each one is unique.

Had Robin Williams had his unique needs met, he would be with us here today.

As for "free education and day care", this is a massive topic.

First off... nothing is "free". It's simply a trade off.

Redirecting resources in an inefficient manner will quite likely result in negative unintended consequences.

I'm going to vote for the person who cares a little more about the Canadian people, and a little less about what he thinks the Canadian people should be.

Socialism... what one group thinks the others "should be".

Your post screams "hypocrite!".