poly, simply put you are guilty of the same sin as Sherriv, Liberty-PAC and the creator of the youtube video. You find a singular definition of Socialism that you like and fits your particular ideological purposes and attempt to essentialize Socialism's definition as singular - you are right and everyone else is wrong.
ALL concepts such as this are simply more complex than that. Socialism is a broad category which includes but is not limited to the description you have provided for it. It includes but is not limited to the descriptions sherriv, liberty-PAC, and the youtube video have provided.
I have provided this resource in the past that I have found very helpful - this is a chapter from Eric Olin Wright's book Envisioning Real Utopias, called "The Socialist Compass." http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~wright/ERU_files/ERU-CHAPTER-5-final.pdf
He attempts to create a typology utilizing the three concepts of economic, state, and social power to better understand what is and what isn't a socialist arrangement. To be fair, he might partially agree with a lot of your statements. He would call USSR and Cuba, for example a "Statist Socialism" system with very intentionally putting "Statist" first in the equation. He also does a really good job of explaining the possibility of Hybrids and why such an essentialized definition for Socialism like the ones you are all are attempting to enforce is simply insufficient for real world application.