That was an incredibly fallacious argument. For one thing, Socialism doesn't 'limit tv ownership' or redistrube wealth, that's communism. Socialism isn't the basis for concentration camps any more than any other economic system is. Most modern countries are at least partially socialist [Most everywhere in Europe, most everywhere in the americas, etc.] and no concentration camps there. Socialism also isn't a supporter for people who 'live on the public dole', it simply provides for basic services to all, instead of denying service to those who can't afford it. In example, take America's healthcare system. For a modest tax hike, all are provided with basic healthcare coverage. Many complain- they don't want to pay for grandpa Joe's diabetes medication across the country. However, which costs more- paying a small fee for medication, or paying for the heart disease, kidney failure, limb necrosis, blindness, etc. that fall upon grandpa Joe when he can't afford his medication? And then he dies, and who pays the debt? The government. It's a difference between the cost of medicine and the cost of life support. Now apply that to all people with diabetes, then all people with other diseases. Someone has to pay in the end, and as is said, an ounce of prevention trumps a pound of cure.
I suggest you learn more about this subject before just choosing one and stating incorrect and fabricated arguments, it shows a strong lack of maturity and just covers your face in egg.
