CSNbbs

Crowder knocks another one out of the park.

(04-06-2016 08:42 PM)Kronke Wrote: [ -> ]Crowder knocks another one out of the park.

now I get to file a plagiarism suite <sic?> against him now.....

it all falls under the 'no shite' category....

one is dumber than a rock if they think sanders has any answers

cruise control is no different....

if one doesn't understand the premise/movement of Trump being electable and effective as he moves forward????

oh wellzy.....

I'm not a democratic socialist but holy hell is that guy a quack.

(04-06-2016 10:16 PM)john01992 Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not a democratic socialist but holy hell is that guy a quack.

Bernie? I agree.

(04-06-2016 10:20 PM)Kronke Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-06-2016 10:16 PM)john01992 Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not a democratic socialist but holy hell is that guy a quack.

Bernie? I agree.

thanks for reminding me that you are too much of a troll to have a serious conversation.

(04-06-2016 10:22 PM)john01992 Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-06-2016 10:20 PM)Kronke Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-06-2016 10:16 PM)john01992 Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not a democratic socialist but holy hell is that guy a quack.

Bernie? I agree.

thanks for reminding me that you are too much of a troll to have a serious conversation.

What are you talking about? I apologize that your nondescript one-liners aren't conducive to serious conversation.

Who is the quack? Why do you consider them such?

All he did, John, was show you text from the democratic socialist's own site.

(04-06-2016 10:26 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote: [ -> ]All he did, John, was show you text from the democratic socialist's own site.

all he did was give a massively low IQ response to said text that provided no real argument. the only people who would actually accept his type of arguments are those who not only already made up their mind that they hate DS, but those who don't understand what it is.

for example he shows a text where DS say they say something along the lines "we support free speech and it is an important american value" and in his very next line makes a one-liner comment then implies "there won't free speech under them" without giving any evidence/rationale other than his reoccurring assumption that DS is the same as what we saw in communist russia which is incorrect. There is a bug difference between the two and that is an absolute fact. that one liner was his only response to that and he moved on to another topic.

so if you want to take that line and think he proved something with it, I feel very sorry for you. you are right, all he did was show text from the DS site.

there are ways to argue against DS. But if you want to have a legitimate argument about it, this is not the way to do it. everything he did in that video was nothing more than the typical facebook comment section/okladixie on here crap. there are a number of regulars here who are on the right who could make an argument 10x more legit than what that guy did.

(04-06-2016 10:55 PM)john01992 Wrote: [ -> ]for example he shows a text where DS say they say something along the lines "we support free speech and it is an important american value" and in his very next line makes a one-liner comment then implies "there won't free speech under them" without giving any evidence/rationale other than his reoccurring assumption that DS is the same as what we saw in communist russia which is incorrect.

If I remember correctly, and I may not, he asked "under what socialist state has free speech ever been allowed?

(04-06-2016 11:14 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-06-2016 10:55 PM)john01992 Wrote: [ -> ]for example he shows a text where DS say they say something along the lines "we support free speech and it is an important american value" and in his very next line makes a one-liner comment then implies "there won't free speech under them" without giving any evidence/rationale other than his reoccurring assumption that DS is the same as what we saw in communist russia which is incorrect.

If I remember correctly, and I may not, he asked "under what socialist state has free speech ever been allowed?

exactly my point. the issue with this quack is that he refuses to acknowledge the absolute fact that democratic socialism is a form of socialism that wants to accomplish the goal of socialism via (and retaining) democratic means which was not the case in Russia, Cuba, etc. this is an absolute fact and he simply disregards that. Sanders has the best civil rights track record of anyone in our political system. you can hate him for his policies but you can't hate him for his integrity. so the notion that he wants to abolish free speech is delusional.

democratic socialism by its own virtue is impossible to implement because it is non-revolutionary and does not call for seizing property. hence the reason it is not seen in officially listed socialist countries. however you see elements of it in a number of european countries like Denmark, Sweden, etc. who can not be mistaken as anything close to the notorious socialist countries.

his segment doesn't really fit his own title because he spends more time talking about issues that don't involve DS than ones that do.

(04-06-2016 11:14 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-06-2016 10:55 PM)john01992 Wrote: [ -> ]for example he shows a text where DS say they say something along the lines "we support free speech and it is an important american value" and in his very next line makes a one-liner comment then implies "there won't free speech under them" without giving any evidence/rationale other than his reoccurring assumption that DS is the same as what we saw in communist russia which is incorrect.

If I remember correctly, and I may not, he asked "under what socialist state has free speech ever been allowed?

in other words BIE

"under which democratic socialist states will free speech be allowed?"
-All of them

(04-06-2016 11:26 PM)john01992 Wrote: [ -> ]democratic socialism by its own virtue is impossible to implement because it is non-revolutionary and does not call for seizing property.

"We believe that the workers and consumers who are affected by economic institutions should own and control them."

(04-06-2016 11:26 PM)john01992 Wrote: [ -> ]his segment doesn't really fit his own title because he spends more time talking about issues that don't involve DS than ones that do.

You keep harking back to the semantics that there is a difference between socialism and "democratic" socialism. The entire theme of his video is that there is no such difference.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XgdtHewGR0#t=06m15s

(04-06-2016 11:28 PM)john01992 Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-06-2016 11:14 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-06-2016 10:55 PM)john01992 Wrote: [ -> ]for example he shows a text where DS say they say something along the lines "we support free speech and it is an important american value" and in his very next line makes a one-liner comment then implies "there won't free speech under them" without giving any evidence/rationale other than his reoccurring assumption that DS is the same as what we saw in communist russia which is incorrect.

If I remember correctly, and I may not, he asked "under what socialist state has free speech ever been allowed?

in other words BIE

"under which socialist states will free speech be allowed?"
-All of them

Current countries with constitutional references to socialism and their speech laws

Country Since Form of government Speech
 People's Republic of Bangladesh 11-Apr-71 Multi-party system Under Section 295A of Bangladesh's Penal Code (1860), any person who has a "deliberate" or "malicious" intention of "hurting religious sentiments" is liable to imprisonment.
 Republic of Guinea-Bissau 24-Sep-73 Multi-party system Freedoms of speech and movement were curtailed, and several political leaders imprisoned
 Co-operative Republic of Guyana 6-Oct-80 Multi-party system Guyana declined from Free to Partly Free due to heightened polarization of the media, as well as verbal intimidation of journalists by members of the ruling party
 Republic of India 18 December 1976 [23] Multi-party system the Indian Penal Code, 1860 which deals with sedition and makes any speech or expression which brings contempt towards government punishable by imprisonment extending from three years to life.
 Democratic People's Republic of Korea 19-Feb-92 One-party system Enough said
   Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal 20-Sep-15 Multi-party system Nepal refuses to 'indulge' Tibetans' freedom of expression.
 Portuguese Republic 2-Apr-76 Multi-party system In 1992, Under-Secretary of State for Culture, António Sousa Lara,[4] who had final say on applications from Portugal, prevented José Saramago's "The Gospel According to Jesus Christ" from participating in the European Literary Award, claiming that the work was not representative of Portugal,
 Democratic Republic of São Tomé and Príncipe 12-Jul-75 Multi-party system Television and radio are state operated and there are no independent stations
 Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka 7-Sep-78 Multi-party system The civil war ended in May 2009 but, according to Reporters Without Borders, murders, physical attacks, kidnappings, threats and censorship continues and that senior government officials, including the defence secretary Gotabhaya Rajapaksa, are directly implicated.
 United Republic of Tanzania 26-Apr-64 Multi-party system About 40 pieces of legislation have been identified as unfriendly to the press. The National Security Act, for instance, allows the government to punish any investigative journalism that touches on information it considers classified.


"All of them"... try again..

(04-06-2016 11:41 PM)Kronke Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-06-2016 11:26 PM)john01992 Wrote: [ -> ]democratic socialism by its own virtue is impossible to implement because it is non-revolutionary and does not call for seizing property.

"We believe that the workers and consumers who are affected by economic institutions should own and control them."

(04-06-2016 11:26 PM)john01992 Wrote: [ -> ]his segment doesn't really fit his own title because he spends more time talking about issues that don't involve DS than ones that do.

You keep harking back to the semantics that there is a difference between socialism and "democratic" socialism. The entire theme of his video is that there is no such difference.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XgdtHewGR0#t=06m15s

And you keep hacking back that said theme disagrees with absolute fact. his segment reads like a 1950s red scare propaganda piece. if you don't like DS then focus on the economic issues. don't go on this BS conspiracy rant that the "democratic" part of their name is just a ploy.

needless to say....this one got fonzies quickly....

y'all are entertaining....

(04-07-2016 12:09 AM)john01992 Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-06-2016 11:41 PM)Kronke Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-06-2016 11:26 PM)john01992 Wrote: [ -> ]democratic socialism by its own virtue is impossible to implement because it is non-revolutionary and does not call for seizing property.

"We believe that the workers and consumers who are affected by economic institutions should own and control them."

(04-06-2016 11:26 PM)john01992 Wrote: [ -> ]his segment doesn't really fit his own title because he spends more time talking about issues that don't involve DS than ones that do.

You keep harking back to the semantics that there is a difference between socialism and "democratic" socialism. The entire theme of his video is that there is no such difference.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XgdtHewGR0#t=06m15s

And you keep hacking back that said theme disagrees with absolute fact. his segment reads like a 1950s red scare propaganda piece. if you don't like DS then focus on the economic issues. don't go on this BS conspiracy rant that the "democratic" part of their name is just a ploy.

You conveniently ignored the part of my post that related to economic issues.

(04-07-2016 12:05 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-06-2016 11:28 PM)john01992 Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-06-2016 11:14 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-06-2016 10:55 PM)john01992 Wrote: [ -> ]for example he shows a text where DS say they say something along the lines "we support free speech and it is an important american value" and in his very next line makes a one-liner comment then implies "there won't free speech under them" without giving any evidence/rationale other than his reoccurring assumption that DS is the same as what we saw in communist russia which is incorrect.

If I remember correctly, and I may not, he asked "under what socialist state has free speech ever been allowed?

in other words BIE

"under which socialist states will free speech be allowed?"
-All of them

Current countries with constitutional references to socialism and their speech laws

Country Since Form of government Speech
 People's Republic of Bangladesh 11-Apr-71 Multi-party system Under Section 295A of Bangladesh's Penal Code (1860), any person who has a "deliberate" or "malicious" intention of "hurting religious sentiments" is liable to imprisonment.
 Republic of Guinea-Bissau 24-Sep-73 Multi-party system Freedoms of speech and movement were curtailed, and several political leaders imprisoned
 Co-operative Republic of Guyana 6-Oct-80 Multi-party system Guyana declined from Free to Partly Free due to heightened polarization of the media, as well as verbal intimidation of journalists by members of the ruling party
 Republic of India 18 December 1976 [23] Multi-party system the Indian Penal Code, 1860 which deals with sedition and makes any speech or expression which brings contempt towards government punishable by imprisonment extending from three years to life.
 Democratic People's Republic of Korea 19-Feb-92 One-party system Enough said
   Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal 20-Sep-15 Multi-party system Nepal refuses to 'indulge' Tibetans' freedom of expression.
 Portuguese Republic 2-Apr-76 Multi-party system In 1992, Under-Secretary of State for Culture, António Sousa Lara,[4] who had final say on applications from Portugal, prevented José Saramago's "The Gospel According to Jesus Christ" from participating in the European Literary Award, claiming that the work was not representative of Portugal,
 Democratic Republic of São Tomé and Príncipe 12-Jul-75 Multi-party system Television and radio are state operated and there are no independent stations
 Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka 7-Sep-78 Multi-party system The civil war ended in May 2009 but, according to Reporters Without Borders, murders, physical attacks, kidnappings, threats and censorship continues and that senior government officials, including the defence secretary Gotabhaya Rajapaksa, are directly implicated.
 United Republic of Tanzania 26-Apr-64 Multi-party system About 40 pieces of legislation have been identified as unfriendly to the press. The National Security Act, for instance, allows the government to punish any investigative journalism that touches on information it considers classified.


"All of them"... try again..

you have literally no integrity. there is a very important reason why I used the words that I used when i wrote that. you took out the most important word in my statement to misquote me and answer a question that I didn't ask because you created said question.

there are socialist countries. there are capitalist countries. and then there are capitalist countries with elements of socialism which were brought about by democratic means (democratic socialism).

(04-07-2016 12:11 AM)Kronke Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-07-2016 12:09 AM)john01992 Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-06-2016 11:41 PM)Kronke Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-06-2016 11:26 PM)john01992 Wrote: [ -> ]democratic socialism by its own virtue is impossible to implement because it is non-revolutionary and does not call for seizing property.

"We believe that the workers and consumers who are affected by economic institutions should own and control them."

(04-06-2016 11:26 PM)john01992 Wrote: [ -> ]his segment doesn't really fit his own title because he spends more time talking about issues that don't involve DS than ones that do.

You keep harking back to the semantics that there is a difference between socialism and "democratic" socialism. The entire theme of his video is that there is no such difference.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XgdtHewGR0#t=06m15s

And you keep hacking back that said theme disagrees with absolute fact. his segment reads like a 1950s red scare propaganda piece. if you don't like DS then focus on the economic issues. don't go on this BS conspiracy rant that the "democratic" part of their name is just a ploy.

You conveniently ignored the part of my post that related to economic issues.

if you are going to use my words against me, do it the right way. I ignored that part because it had to do nothing with economic issues and was covered in the second part. that first part only plays into the the non-democratic conspiracy theory crap. DS's say "We believe that the workers and consumers who are affected by economic institutions should own and control them." but the line doesn't mean via hostile takeover, and the interpretations of that line can suggest "not by outright ownership but by taxation/regulation to encourage them"

but all of this omits that every listing of Sanders as a DS only comes as "self described." I'm 99% sure he is not affiliated with the organization the OP is mentioning and if you follow his rhetoric he more closely mirrors someone who wants elements of DS in capitalist country. no matter how much crap he gives wall street and the 1%, it really can't be said that he wants to eradicate the ability of the rich to be rich. his rhetoric is that our wealth gap/influence of the 1% in politics is insane and needs to be reduced.

Lol, john dares utter words like integrity.

(04-07-2016 12:37 AM)Paul M Wrote: [ -> ]Lol, john dares utter words like integrity.

did he not intentionally misquote me?