(07-02-2020 09:26 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (07-02-2020 09:06 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (07-02-2020 08:44 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (07-02-2020 07:13 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (07-02-2020 06:53 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]I think your ilk has constantly compared relatively moderate liberals to communists/socialists for so long, that your ilk has effectively destroyed the actual meaning of those words, and the real understanding of the inherently flawed nature of actual communism.
When your ilk continue to call people who would be labeled as moderate in Western European states as Antifa, socialist, or communist, you and your ilk are doing no favors to your cause. Your ilk just subvert your own goals because of these rather hyperbolic statements and conspiracy-esque fever dreams.
If you "moderate" leftists (and I don't use "liberals" because I'm a classical liberal, and your expressed views bear little resemblance to classical liberalism) would stand up to the Antifa/socialist/communist wing, then perhaps you would have some credibility with your assertions.
No matter how much a conservative disavows idiots like the KKK and white supremacists, it's never enough to avoid allegations. But no matter how much the left cozies up to the Antifa/socialist/communist wing, you persist in maintaining that you sold not be stuck with that late.
If you don't want to be painted with the same brush, then distinguish yourself from them. If you want to excuse and defend them, be prepared to deal with the inevitable logical consequences.
I understand why your ilk want to paint liberals with that brush. I am arguing that you and your ilk are self-defeating by unreasonably doing it. You and your ilk water-down actual communism and socialism when you do that.
I also find it supremely ironic that you and your ilk constantly caw about how awful it is to be painted as racists/Nazis because racists/Nazis actively run for political office under the conservative banner, or openly and actively support mainstream conservative politicians. But you and your ilk have no problem painting with an even broader brush about groups like antifa or actual communists.
How else does one describe the concurrent acts and goals of: a) redistributing wealth based on principles of 'fairness'; b) continuously attacking the fundamental principles of capitalism; c) the huge attraction to the congruent principles of wealth redistribution and massive use of government power and intrusiveness to do so?
And the funny thing, you use the ideal of a fringe element of 'racists' and 'nazis' in your delineation of the terribleness of denoting a-c (and perhaps more) as 'socialist'. Yet you blithely overlook the concept that all the while that the Nazi/skinhead/racist moniker is, in fact, a fringe -- in fact a fringe that is continuously denounced.
The concepts of a)-c) above are part of the progressive national platform.
Interesting ability to overlook those issues.
In conclusion, when you come up with a word that encompasses a)-c) above *better* than 'socialism', I will be more than happy to use it. Funny thing is that a)-c) (i.e. the progressive goals) are actually closer to the root philosophy of national socialism than any thing in the Republican platform --- albeit your branch does not have 'get rid of the mud people' in it. Your branch *does* have 'FK the police' in it in the same manner that conservatism is 'related' to the racial component of national socialism, as in interesting side note.
I look forward to that proffered word as substitute. But, I also note that I am also looking forward to your deconstruction of the Inhofe book as an example of 'denialism', or, in the alternative, your notation that you did not read the book and are blowing smoke out of your ass in your description of that book as 'denialist' literature. That is, without having bothered to read it.
You make my point well - you're developing a new definition for socialism and communism which doesn't include the central tenant that the means of production are commonly owned.
You're correct that progressive goals which have those three aspects are closer to true socialism/communism than unfettered capitalism, but they are still not socialism/communism. And when you and your ilk constantly deride pretty much any regulation/taxation as communism/socialism, you bastardize the concept and undermine your own goal (of trying to push people away from true socialism/communism).
from the Oxford dictionary, lad:
Quote:Socialism:
a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
Kind of runs against your 'central tenet' theorem there, lad.
Bummer.
If you would bother to read the earliest proponents of socialism, they noted that the state would be a great purveyor of the principles even without the 'state ownership'.
When you put your 'lad thinking cap' on, you might note that the National Socialist party in Germany named themselves "socialists" for some reason, yet they still did not 'own the means of production'. They simply did what all good progressives do ----- they used state regulation as the de facto substitue.
Your talking points really dont have the backing of history, lad. Nor is your 'central tenet' really comporting with not just the historical record of the german experiment in National Socialism, but the Mussolini model of it as well. Nor is it in strict congruence with the Oxford dictionary definition above.
And, it is stunningly obvious that you are completely in the dark in the ideal of Lenin's 'third way'. Communism absolutely at its core requires state ownership. Socialism has, very deeply in history, been associated with collectivism more in general, both in ownership sense and in the ideal of heavy state regulation. Deeply embedded in socialist theory is the concept of such collective control, either through direct ownership or through state directive, coupled with the ideal that such direction should be based not on capitalist principles, but on principles of 'fairness'.
Good grief. A little bit of deeper dive into 'socialism' might be in order for you.
(07-02-2020 09:41 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (07-02-2020 09:26 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (07-02-2020 09:06 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (07-02-2020 08:44 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (07-02-2020 07:13 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]If you "moderate" leftists (and I don't use "liberals" because I'm a classical liberal, and your expressed views bear little resemblance to classical liberalism) would stand up to the Antifa/socialist/communist wing, then perhaps you would have some credibility with your assertions.
No matter how much a conservative disavows idiots like the KKK and white supremacists, it's never enough to avoid allegations. But no matter how much the left cozies up to the Antifa/socialist/communist wing, you persist in maintaining that you sold not be stuck with that late.
If you don't want to be painted with the same brush, then distinguish yourself from them. If you want to excuse and defend them, be prepared to deal with the inevitable logical consequences.
I understand why your ilk want to paint liberals with that brush. I am arguing that you and your ilk are self-defeating by unreasonably doing it. You and your ilk water-down actual communism and socialism when you do that.
I also find it supremely ironic that you and your ilk constantly caw about how awful it is to be painted as racists/Nazis because racists/Nazis actively run for political office under the conservative banner, or openly and actively support mainstream conservative politicians. But you and your ilk have no problem painting with an even broader brush about groups like antifa or actual communists.
How else does one describe the concurrent acts and goals of: a) redistributing wealth based on principles of 'fairness'; b) continuously attacking the fundamental principles of capitalism; c) the huge attraction to the congruent principles of wealth redistribution and massive use of government power and intrusiveness to do so?
And the funny thing, you use the ideal of a fringe element of 'racists' and 'nazis' in your delineation of the terribleness of denoting a-c (and perhaps more) as 'socialist'. Yet you blithely overlook the concept that all the while that the Nazi/skinhead/racist moniker is, in fact, a fringe -- in fact a fringe that is continuously denounced.
The concepts of a)-c) above are part of the progressive national platform.
Interesting ability to overlook those issues.
In conclusion, when you come up with a word that encompasses a)-c) above *better* than 'socialism', I will be more than happy to use it. Funny thing is that a)-c) (i.e. the progressive goals) are actually closer to the root philosophy of national socialism than any thing in the Republican platform --- albeit your branch does not have 'get rid of the mud people' in it. Your branch *does* have 'FK the police' in it in the same manner that conservatism is 'related' to the racial component of national socialism, as in interesting side note.
I look forward to that proffered word as substitute. But, I also note that I am also looking forward to your deconstruction of the Inhofe book as an example of 'denialism', or, in the alternative, your notation that you did not read the book and are blowing smoke out of your ass in your description of that book as 'denialist' literature. That is, without having bothered to read it.
You make my point well - you're developing a new definition for socialism and communism which doesn't include the central tenant that the means of production are commonly owned.
You're correct that progressive goals which have those three aspects are closer to true socialism/communism than unfettered capitalism, but they are still not socialism/communism. And when you and your ilk constantly deride pretty much any regulation/taxation as communism/socialism, you bastardize the concept and undermine your own goal (of trying to push people away from true socialism/communism).
Tell Newsweek that they arent socialism. I remember a cover story that loudly proclaimed that not horribly long ago. Funny that.
Again, tell me a better word than that for that progressive triumvirate that the government is king, that the government will dictate social and economic policy, and that the concept of wealth possession shall be dictated by fairness.
Funny thing, all of those concepts appear in the forms of societies that are called (drum roll)...... socialist.
So what the fk do you want to call that shittard stupid triumvirate of principles? I am still waiting for that lad.
The government will dictate social and economic policy????
THE HORRORS OF LIVING IN A COUNTRY WHERE THE GOVERNMENT SETS SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC POLICY - SAVE ME FROM THAT NIGHTMARISH HELL!!!!!
(07-02-2020 09:48 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (07-02-2020 09:26 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (07-02-2020 09:06 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (07-02-2020 08:44 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (07-02-2020 07:13 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]If you "moderate" leftists (and I don't use "liberals" because I'm a classical liberal, and your expressed views bear little resemblance to classical liberalism) would stand up to the Antifa/socialist/communist wing, then perhaps you would have some credibility with your assertions.
No matter how much a conservative disavows idiots like the KKK and white supremacists, it's never enough to avoid allegations. But no matter how much the left cozies up to the Antifa/socialist/communist wing, you persist in maintaining that you sold not be stuck with that late.
If you don't want to be painted with the same brush, then distinguish yourself from them. If you want to excuse and defend them, be prepared to deal with the inevitable logical consequences.
I understand why your ilk want to paint liberals with that brush. I am arguing that you and your ilk are self-defeating by unreasonably doing it. You and your ilk water-down actual communism and socialism when you do that.
I also find it supremely ironic that you and your ilk constantly caw about how awful it is to be painted as racists/Nazis because racists/Nazis actively run for political office under the conservative banner, or openly and actively support mainstream conservative politicians. But you and your ilk have no problem painting with an even broader brush about groups like antifa or actual communists.
How else does one describe the concurrent acts and goals of: a) redistributing wealth based on principles of 'fairness'; b) continuously attacking the fundamental principles of capitalism; c) the huge attraction to the congruent principles of wealth redistribution and massive use of government power and intrusiveness to do so?
And the funny thing, you use the ideal of a fringe element of 'racists' and 'nazis' in your delineation of the terribleness of denoting a-c (and perhaps more) as 'socialist'. Yet you blithely overlook the concept that all the while that the Nazi/skinhead/racist moniker is, in fact, a fringe -- in fact a fringe that is continuously denounced.
The concepts of a)-c) above are part of the progressive national platform.
Interesting ability to overlook those issues.
In conclusion, when you come up with a word that encompasses a)-c) above *better* than 'socialism', I will be more than happy to use it. Funny thing is that a)-c) (i.e. the progressive goals) are actually closer to the root philosophy of national socialism than any thing in the Republican platform --- albeit your branch does not have 'get rid of the mud people' in it. Your branch *does* have 'FK the police' in it in the same manner that conservatism is 'related' to the racial component of national socialism, as in interesting side note.
I look forward to that proffered word as substitute. But, I also note that I am also looking forward to your deconstruction of the Inhofe book as an example of 'denialism', or, in the alternative, your notation that you did not read the book and are blowing smoke out of your ass in your description of that book as 'denialist' literature. That is, without having bothered to read it.
You make my point well - you're developing a new definition for socialism and communism which doesn't include the central tenant that the means of production are commonly owned.
You're correct that progressive goals which have those three aspects are closer to true socialism/communism than unfettered capitalism, but they are still not socialism/communism. And when you and your ilk constantly deride pretty much any regulation/taxation as communism/socialism, you bastardize the concept and undermine your own goal (of trying to push people away from true socialism/communism).
from the Oxford dictionary, lad:
Quote:Socialism:
a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
Kind of runs against your 'central tenet' theorem there, lad.
Bummer.
If you would bother to read the earliest proponents of socialism, they noted that the state would be a great purveyor of the principles even without the 'state ownership'.
When you put your 'lad thinking cap' on, you might note that the National Socialist party in Germany named themselves "socialists" for some reason, yet they still did not 'own the means of production'. They simply did what all good progressives do ----- they used state regulation as the de facto substitue.
Your talking points really dont have the backing of history, lad. Nor is your 'central tenet' really comporting with not just the historical record of the german experiment in National Socialism, but the Mussolini model of it as well. Nor is it in strict congruence with the Oxford dictionary definition above.
Good grief.
OWNED OR REGULATED BY THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE.
Did you miss the central tenant of that definition? Again, until we get close to a point where everything is owned by the community as a whole, stop calling it socialism. You're literally watering down a concept in a way that is counter to your goals.
Quote:... as you and your ilk are so wanton to do.
For a purely linguistic, apolitical digression:
I think you mean "wont" (indicating a customary or habitual act, usually followed by an infinitive). I can see how "wanton" might come to mind, but it is not usually followed by an infinitive.
Ok, back to arguing.
(07-02-2020 09:49 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (07-02-2020 09:41 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (07-02-2020 09:26 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (07-02-2020 09:06 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (07-02-2020 08:44 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]I understand why your ilk want to paint liberals with that brush. I am arguing that you and your ilk are self-defeating by unreasonably doing it. You and your ilk water-down actual communism and socialism when you do that.
I also find it supremely ironic that you and your ilk constantly caw about how awful it is to be painted as racists/Nazis because racists/Nazis actively run for political office under the conservative banner, or openly and actively support mainstream conservative politicians. But you and your ilk have no problem painting with an even broader brush about groups like antifa or actual communists.
How else does one describe the concurrent acts and goals of: a) redistributing wealth based on principles of 'fairness'; b) continuously attacking the fundamental principles of capitalism; c) the huge attraction to the congruent principles of wealth redistribution and massive use of government power and intrusiveness to do so?
And the funny thing, you use the ideal of a fringe element of 'racists' and 'nazis' in your delineation of the terribleness of denoting a-c (and perhaps more) as 'socialist'. Yet you blithely overlook the concept that all the while that the Nazi/skinhead/racist moniker is, in fact, a fringe -- in fact a fringe that is continuously denounced.
The concepts of a)-c) above are part of the progressive national platform.
Interesting ability to overlook those issues.
In conclusion, when you come up with a word that encompasses a)-c) above *better* than 'socialism', I will be more than happy to use it. Funny thing is that a)-c) (i.e. the progressive goals) are actually closer to the root philosophy of national socialism than any thing in the Republican platform --- albeit your branch does not have 'get rid of the mud people' in it. Your branch *does* have 'FK the police' in it in the same manner that conservatism is 'related' to the racial component of national socialism, as in interesting side note.
I look forward to that proffered word as substitute. But, I also note that I am also looking forward to your deconstruction of the Inhofe book as an example of 'denialism', or, in the alternative, your notation that you did not read the book and are blowing smoke out of your ass in your description of that book as 'denialist' literature. That is, without having bothered to read it.
You make my point well - you're developing a new definition for socialism and communism which doesn't include the central tenant that the means of production are commonly owned.
You're correct that progressive goals which have those three aspects are closer to true socialism/communism than unfettered capitalism, but they are still not socialism/communism. And when you and your ilk constantly deride pretty much any regulation/taxation as communism/socialism, you bastardize the concept and undermine your own goal (of trying to push people away from true socialism/communism).
Tell Newsweek that they arent socialism. I remember a cover story that loudly proclaimed that not horribly long ago. Funny that.
Again, tell me a better word than that for that progressive triumvirate that the government is king, that the government will dictate social and economic policy, and that the concept of wealth possession shall be dictated by fairness.
Funny thing, all of those concepts appear in the forms of societies that are called (drum roll)...... socialist.
So what the fk do you want to call that shittard stupid triumvirate of principles? I am still waiting for that lad.
The government will dictate social and economic policy????
THE HORRORS OF LIVING IN A COUNTRY WHERE THE GOVERNMENT SETS SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC POLICY - SAVE ME FROM THAT NIGHTMARISH HELL!!!!!
We are trying, but it's like trying to rescue a drowning man - you are trying to pull us down with you. Stop fighting us.
Yes, the Soviet Union, North Korea, Venezuela, and Cuba are all paradises that nobody ever tried to escape from. You ever wonder who set social and economic policy for Nazi Germany? National socialism = nazi.
And now we have a clear admission from lad that he's a Socialist. He pines to be controlled and poor. I knew it.
(07-02-2020 09:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (07-02-2020 09:48 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (07-02-2020 09:26 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (07-02-2020 09:06 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (07-02-2020 08:44 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]I understand why your ilk want to paint liberals with that brush. I am arguing that you and your ilk are self-defeating by unreasonably doing it. You and your ilk water-down actual communism and socialism when you do that.
I also find it supremely ironic that you and your ilk constantly caw about how awful it is to be painted as racists/Nazis because racists/Nazis actively run for political office under the conservative banner, or openly and actively support mainstream conservative politicians. But you and your ilk have no problem painting with an even broader brush about groups like antifa or actual communists.
How else does one describe the concurrent acts and goals of: a) redistributing wealth based on principles of 'fairness'; b) continuously attacking the fundamental principles of capitalism; c) the huge attraction to the congruent principles of wealth redistribution and massive use of government power and intrusiveness to do so?
And the funny thing, you use the ideal of a fringe element of 'racists' and 'nazis' in your delineation of the terribleness of denoting a-c (and perhaps more) as 'socialist'. Yet you blithely overlook the concept that all the while that the Nazi/skinhead/racist moniker is, in fact, a fringe -- in fact a fringe that is continuously denounced.
The concepts of a)-c) above are part of the progressive national platform.
Interesting ability to overlook those issues.
In conclusion, when you come up with a word that encompasses a)-c) above *better* than 'socialism', I will be more than happy to use it. Funny thing is that a)-c) (i.e. the progressive goals) are actually closer to the root philosophy of national socialism than any thing in the Republican platform --- albeit your branch does not have 'get rid of the mud people' in it. Your branch *does* have 'FK the police' in it in the same manner that conservatism is 'related' to the racial component of national socialism, as in interesting side note.
I look forward to that proffered word as substitute. But, I also note that I am also looking forward to your deconstruction of the Inhofe book as an example of 'denialism', or, in the alternative, your notation that you did not read the book and are blowing smoke out of your ass in your description of that book as 'denialist' literature. That is, without having bothered to read it.
You make my point well - you're developing a new definition for socialism and communism which doesn't include the central tenant that the means of production are commonly owned.
You're correct that progressive goals which have those three aspects are closer to true socialism/communism than unfettered capitalism, but they are still not socialism/communism. And when you and your ilk constantly deride pretty much any regulation/taxation as communism/socialism, you bastardize the concept and undermine your own goal (of trying to push people away from true socialism/communism).
from the Oxford dictionary, lad:
Quote:Socialism:
a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
Kind of runs against your 'central tenet' theorem there, lad.
Bummer.
If you would bother to read the earliest proponents of socialism, they noted that the state would be a great purveyor of the principles even without the 'state ownership'.
When you put your 'lad thinking cap' on, you might note that the National Socialist party in Germany named themselves "socialists" for some reason, yet they still did not 'own the means of production'. They simply did what all good progressives do ----- they used state regulation as the de facto substitue.
Your talking points really dont have the backing of history, lad. Nor is your 'central tenet' really comporting with not just the historical record of the german experiment in National Socialism, but the Mussolini model of it as well. Nor is it in strict congruence with the Oxford dictionary definition above.
Good grief.
OWNED OR REGULATED BY THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE.
Did you miss the central tenant of that definition? Again, until we get close to a point where everything is owned by the community as a whole, stop calling it socialism. You're literally watering down a concept in a way that is counter to your goals.
Funny, you gloss over the term 'or' there in your fing scream. I suggest you re-read that.
And again, I suggest a little more research into the history of socialism. Particularly Lenin's 'third way', the socialist backing of Mussolini's Italy, and the cute German foray into that realm between 1935 - 1945.
None of them had, as the 'core tenet', government ownership of production -- yet all are fundamentally and undeniably socialist.
Again, the "or" is important. Words matter.
(07-02-2020 09:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Again, until we get close to a point where everything is owned by the community as a whole, stop calling it socialism. You're literally watering down a concept in a way that is counter to your goals.
In the same vein, but far more starkly, it seems clear that "progressives", by aggressively and intentionally over-using the term "racism", have watered it down in a way that is counter to sensible goals.
(07-02-2020 09:59 AM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ] (07-02-2020 09:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Again, until we get close to a point where everything is owned by the community as a whole, stop calling it socialism. You're literally watering down a concept in a way that is counter to your goals.
In the same vein, but far more starkly, it seems clear that "progressives", by aggressively and intentionally over-using the term "racism", have watered it down in a way that is counter to sensible goals.
Correct. As noted the sentence "The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting" is now "racist".
Amazing that.
(07-02-2020 09:54 AM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ]Quote:... as you and your ilk are so wanton to do.
For a purely linguistic, apolitical digression:
I think you mean "wont" (indicating a customary or habitual act, usually followed by an infinitive). I can see how "wanton" might come to mind, but it is not usually followed by an infinitive.
Ok, back to arguing.
So I'm not the best speller, and had to look up what the actually spelling for wanton was (my fingers initially typed "wonton" but I realized that definitely wasn't the word I wanted to use). The definition wasn't quite what I wanted to get across, but was close enough.
You're correct that "wont" was actually the word I was trying to use - I didn't even know that was a word. Trying to add that to my lexicon now.
(07-02-2020 09:59 AM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ] (07-02-2020 09:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Again, until we get close to a point where everything is owned by the community as a whole, stop calling it socialism. You're literally watering down a concept in a way that is counter to your goals.
In the same vein, but far more starkly, it seems clear that "progressives", by aggressively and intentionally over-using the term "racism", have watered it down in a way that is counter to sensible goals.
I completely agree (and mentioned the irony of that to Owl#s earlier).
I've posted a number of times that, right around Trump's election, I had a conversation with a friend about how Dems really ****** up with trying to paint Mitt as some sort of racist/sexist, because he wasn't anywhere close to that. And that I hoped they would learn, going forward, to be less cavalier with the label - I don't think they really have.
(07-02-2020 09:57 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (07-02-2020 09:49 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (07-02-2020 09:41 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (07-02-2020 09:26 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (07-02-2020 09:06 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]How else does one describe the concurrent acts and goals of: a) redistributing wealth based on principles of 'fairness'; b) continuously attacking the fundamental principles of capitalism; c) the huge attraction to the congruent principles of wealth redistribution and massive use of government power and intrusiveness to do so?
And the funny thing, you use the ideal of a fringe element of 'racists' and 'nazis' in your delineation of the terribleness of denoting a-c (and perhaps more) as 'socialist'. Yet you blithely overlook the concept that all the while that the Nazi/skinhead/racist moniker is, in fact, a fringe -- in fact a fringe that is continuously denounced.
The concepts of a)-c) above are part of the progressive national platform.
Interesting ability to overlook those issues.
In conclusion, when you come up with a word that encompasses a)-c) above *better* than 'socialism', I will be more than happy to use it. Funny thing is that a)-c) (i.e. the progressive goals) are actually closer to the root philosophy of national socialism than any thing in the Republican platform --- albeit your branch does not have 'get rid of the mud people' in it. Your branch *does* have 'FK the police' in it in the same manner that conservatism is 'related' to the racial component of national socialism, as in interesting side note.
I look forward to that proffered word as substitute. But, I also note that I am also looking forward to your deconstruction of the Inhofe book as an example of 'denialism', or, in the alternative, your notation that you did not read the book and are blowing smoke out of your ass in your description of that book as 'denialist' literature. That is, without having bothered to read it.
You make my point well - you're developing a new definition for socialism and communism which doesn't include the central tenant that the means of production are commonly owned.
You're correct that progressive goals which have those three aspects are closer to true socialism/communism than unfettered capitalism, but they are still not socialism/communism. And when you and your ilk constantly deride pretty much any regulation/taxation as communism/socialism, you bastardize the concept and undermine your own goal (of trying to push people away from true socialism/communism).
Tell Newsweek that they arent socialism. I remember a cover story that loudly proclaimed that not horribly long ago. Funny that.
Again, tell me a better word than that for that progressive triumvirate that the government is king, that the government will dictate social and economic policy, and that the concept of wealth possession shall be dictated by fairness.
Funny thing, all of those concepts appear in the forms of societies that are called (drum roll)...... socialist.
So what the fk do you want to call that shittard stupid triumvirate of principles? I am still waiting for that lad.
The government will dictate social and economic policy????
THE HORRORS OF LIVING IN A COUNTRY WHERE THE GOVERNMENT SETS SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC POLICY - SAVE ME FROM THAT NIGHTMARISH HELL!!!!!
We are trying, but it's like trying to rescue a drowning man - you are trying to pull us down with you. Stop fighting us.
Yes, the Soviet Union, North Korea, Venezuela, and Cuba are all paradises that nobody ever tried to escape from. You ever wonder who set social and economic policy for Nazi Germany? National socialism = nazi.
And now we have a clear admission from lad that he's a Socialist. He pines to be controlled and poor. I knew it.
Aannndddd I'm out.
When you jump to such a conclusion as labeling me a "socialist" when I haven't even come close to either stating that, or advocating for actual socialism, it's time to bow out.
My overarching point is that, you and your ilk are doing your own movement harm by labeling anything under the sun as "socialist." It waters down the term (making it harder to understand just how bad real communism/socialism are in implementation), further politicizes reasonable government policies (like increasing tax rates, mass health care, etc.), and pegs conservatives as a party beholden to the free market which doesn't value any form of government (i.e. going past a limited federal government).
Increased government action does not immediately mean socialism, but you and your ilk are so hell bent on doing that, that you think I'm a socialist for these past few posts.
(07-02-2020 10:14 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (07-02-2020 09:57 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (07-02-2020 09:49 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (07-02-2020 09:41 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (07-02-2020 09:26 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]You make my point well - you're developing a new definition for socialism and communism which doesn't include the central tenant that the means of production are commonly owned.
You're correct that progressive goals which have those three aspects are closer to true socialism/communism than unfettered capitalism, but they are still not socialism/communism. And when you and your ilk constantly deride pretty much any regulation/taxation as communism/socialism, you bastardize the concept and undermine your own goal (of trying to push people away from true socialism/communism).
Tell Newsweek that they arent socialism. I remember a cover story that loudly proclaimed that not horribly long ago. Funny that.
Again, tell me a better word than that for that progressive triumvirate that the government is king, that the government will dictate social and economic policy, and that the concept of wealth possession shall be dictated by fairness.
Funny thing, all of those concepts appear in the forms of societies that are called (drum roll)...... socialist.
So what the fk do you want to call that shittard stupid triumvirate of principles? I am still waiting for that lad.
The government will dictate social and economic policy????
THE HORRORS OF LIVING IN A COUNTRY WHERE THE GOVERNMENT SETS SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC POLICY - SAVE ME FROM THAT NIGHTMARISH HELL!!!!!
We are trying, but it's like trying to rescue a drowning man - you are trying to pull us down with you. Stop fighting us.
Yes, the Soviet Union, North Korea, Venezuela, and Cuba are all paradises that nobody ever tried to escape from. You ever wonder who set social and economic policy for Nazi Germany? National socialism = nazi.
And now we have a clear admission from lad that he's a Socialist. He pines to be controlled and poor. I knew it.
Aannndddd I'm out.
When you jump to such a conclusion as labeling me a "socialist" when I haven't even come close to either stating that, or advocating for actual socialism, it's time to bow out.
My overarching point is that, you and your ilk are doing your own movement harm by labeling anything under the sun as "socialist." It waters down the term (making it harder to understand just how bad real communism/socialism are in implementation), further politicizes reasonable government policies (like increasing tax rates, mass health care, etc.), and pegs conservatives as a party beholden to the free market which doesn't value any form of government (i.e. going past a limited federal government).
Increased government action does not immediately mean socialism, but you and your ilk are so hell bent on doing that, that you think I'm a socialist for these past few posts.
I think your words in all caps define you. If not, tell me what they mean.
As usual, the left wants to argue until they are losing - then it's "I'm out". No wonder they hate the Counterpuncher-in-Chief. How dare he fight back when they try to vilify him!
If you think of it as a spectrum, "increased government action" just gets us closer (and closer) to the point on the spectrum where we are socialist.
You really hate being lumped in with the Socialists and Communists don't you? Try joining the Capitalists - we are always lumped in with the white supremacists. You get used to it.
(07-02-2020 10:04 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (07-02-2020 09:54 AM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ]Quote:... as you and your ilk are so wanton to do.
For a purely linguistic, apolitical digression:
I think you mean "wont" (indicating a customary or habitual act, usually followed by an infinitive). I can see how "wanton" might come to mind, but it is not usually followed by an infinitive.
Ok, back to arguing.
So I'm not the best speller, and had to look up what the actually spelling for wanton was (my fingers initially typed "wonton" but I realized that definitely wasn't the word I wanted to use). The definition wasn't quite what I wanted to get across, but was close enough.
You're correct that "wont" was actually the word I was trying to use - I didn't even know that was a word. Trying to add that to my lexicon now.
To add to the confusion of similar-sounding words, there's also the alternative meaning of "want" meaning "lack", as in the famous words of the 23rd Psalm: "The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want..." All of these usages are rare enough that people aren't completely familiar with them, and thus are easy to get mixed up.
(07-02-2020 10:07 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (07-02-2020 09:59 AM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ] (07-02-2020 09:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Again, until we get close to a point where everything is owned by the community as a whole, stop calling it socialism. You're literally watering down a concept in a way that is counter to your goals.
In the same vein, but far more starkly, it seems clear that "progressives", by aggressively and intentionally over-using the term "racism", have watered it down in a way that is counter to sensible goals.
I completely agree (and mentioned the irony of that to Owl#s earlier).
I've posted a number of times that, right around Trump's election, I had a conversation with a friend about how Dems really ****** up with trying to paint Mitt as some sort of racist/sexist, because he wasn't anywhere close to that. And that I hoped they would learn, going forward, to be less cavalier with the label - I don't think they really have.
I agree. The same suggestion of caution, uttered today, would probably get you denounced as a "racist" yourself.
(07-02-2020 09:22 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]It still means they are inherently OK with Trump sitting by idly if they're willing to vote for him - which was Trump's point about shooting someone on 5th Ave. It's not clear what Trump would have to do to get his supporters (and other conservatives) to not vote for him.
You can try and wash it away with the fact that the rationale of voting for Trump is primarily motivated by keeping Biden from the WH, but the pig you're putting lipstick on is still there. So don't try and argue it isn't.
Oh, so now you're not only an expert on us, but on Trump. Hint.... Trump's comment was IMO an egotistical rant about his opinion about how much people 'love' him.... and not about keeping Hillary from the White House. I don't love him one bit. I've very clearly said that if he shot someone on 5th avenue (in any remotely plausible scenario) he should be in jail and someone else would be on the ticket.... and I sure as hell wouldn't 'write in' someone I didn't want in the first place, especially since I didn't vote for him when he HADN'T shot anyone.... If that meant that Hillary or Biden won, so be it. I'd be upset/concerned because of the outcome.... but I'd still vote 3rd party.
OO didn't vote at all, and numbers and I voted 3rd party and likely will again... so yeah, you can continue to tell lies in a childish effort to cast aspersions on those who disagree with you politically... but they're bald-faced lies.... and you're a liar.
Pitiful
(07-02-2020 09:30 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Ah, so Trump COULD shoot someone on 5th Avenue and still be supported.
Thanks for the confirmation.
Thank YOU for the confirmation that you choose to engage in discourse not worthy of this forum. And you're surprised when people don't take you seriously or treat you with respect?
(07-02-2020 10:14 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Aannndddd I'm out.
When you jump to such a conclusion as labeling me a "socialist" when I haven't even come close to either stating that, or advocating for actual socialism, it's time to bow out.
You've spent the majority of this thread telling 3 people who didn't vote for Trump last time and at least two who have said they still don't intend to... that we are 'blind Trump supporters'.... but boy, when you get labeled by the party you clearly advocate for and voted for last time and will vote for again... you've had enough.
Laughable
(07-02-2020 09:47 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (07-02-2020 09:35 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (07-02-2020 09:22 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (07-02-2020 09:17 AM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ] (07-01-2020 02:37 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Ham, you gotta be kidding. OO literally said “No. Trump losing = Democrats winning. That would be a disaster.” to Big when he asked “ If it turns out that either of the following is true, would it affect your opinion of Trump enough to possibly dissuade you from voting for him? ”
Which very clearly means that like most of you Democrats voting against Trump as opposed to 'for' Biden... they are voting AGAINST Democrats. If you claim you don't understand the difference, then you're not being honest... because it is quite literally the mantra the left has been pushing for your own party for months... and arguably, years.
It still means they are inherently OK with Trump sitting by idly if they're willing to vote for him - which was Trump's point about shooting someone on 5th Ave. It's not clear what Trump would have to do to get his supporters (and other conservatives) to not vote for him.
The same level of what the hell would the Democrat would have do to get his supporters (and other fellow travelers) not to vote for him.
I love the one way myopia highway there.
Quote:You can try and wash it away with the fact that the rationale of voting for Trump is primarily motivated by keeping Biden from the WH, but the pig you're putting lipstick on is still there. So don't try and argue it isn't.
Actually your angst is coloring your worldview there, lad. Once again.
If the Democrats could actually put a moderate in place to run I would vote for that person in a New York second. Problem is your party is bent so far to the fing socialist left, they cant do that.
But you characterize that my position on the underlying comparison of the issues is merely 'putting lipstick on a pig'. Glad to see you have caught the Hillary deplorable tone -- kind of goes smashingly well with your stupid as **** and amazingly broad comment that 'being a climate change skeptic' is simply a renaming of 'denialist'.
Lololol - caught the deplorable tone because I used a common phrase of "putting lipstick on a pig?"
Lighten up snowflake and don't cover behind the deplorable incident as you and your ilk are so wanton to do.
No, I caught it because the issue is not voting for a candidate because of issues. You are the person that decides to smother that concept up with 'putting lipstick on a pig'.
You seemingly feel the need to equate 'wow, I really dont support Candidate D because of the issues' to 'well, that is putting the lipstick of a rationale onto blindly voting for Trump.'
If you dont note the difference between the two, then that is *your* fing problem, lad, not mine. And, if you cannot denote the difference between 'voting for Trump just because' and 'there is no fing way I would vote for Biden for a multitude of reasons', then your political (and perhaps comprehension) veil has darkened considerably.
Still looking for the deconstruction of the Inhofe book you proudly brought front and center. Did you even read it? Or were parroting what the talking points told you?
(07-02-2020 10:44 AM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ] (07-02-2020 10:14 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Aannndddd I'm out.
When you jump to such a conclusion as labeling me a "socialist" when I haven't even come close to either stating that, or advocating for actual socialism, it's time to bow out.
You've spent the majority of this thread telling 3 people who didn't vote for Trump last time and at least two who have said they still don't intend to... that we are 'blind Trump supporters'.... but boy, when you get labeled by the party you clearly advocate for and voted for last time and will vote for again... you've had enough.
Laughable
Did he say "blind" Trump supporters? To me that would be a supporter that is clueless about his obvious flaws. It seemed like he was saying that you guys recognize his flaws and, despite them, there is little that he could do that would make you not support him (not voting for him in Texas is a likely meaningless move and at least one of you have stated that they WILL vote for him if it seems close).
(07-02-2020 10:14 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (07-02-2020 09:57 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (07-02-2020 09:49 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (07-02-2020 09:41 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (07-02-2020 09:26 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]You make my point well - you're developing a new definition for socialism and communism which doesn't include the central tenant that the means of production are commonly owned.
You're correct that progressive goals which have those three aspects are closer to true socialism/communism than unfettered capitalism, but they are still not socialism/communism. And when you and your ilk constantly deride pretty much any regulation/taxation as communism/socialism, you bastardize the concept and undermine your own goal (of trying to push people away from true socialism/communism).
Tell Newsweek that they arent socialism. I remember a cover story that loudly proclaimed that not horribly long ago. Funny that.
Again, tell me a better word than that for that progressive triumvirate that the government is king, that the government will dictate social and economic policy, and that the concept of wealth possession shall be dictated by fairness.
Funny thing, all of those concepts appear in the forms of societies that are called (drum roll)...... socialist.
So what the fk do you want to call that shittard stupid triumvirate of principles? I am still waiting for that lad.
The government will dictate social and economic policy????
THE HORRORS OF LIVING IN A COUNTRY WHERE THE GOVERNMENT SETS SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC POLICY - SAVE ME FROM THAT NIGHTMARISH HELL!!!!!
We are trying, but it's like trying to rescue a drowning man - you are trying to pull us down with you. Stop fighting us.
Yes, the Soviet Union, North Korea, Venezuela, and Cuba are all paradises that nobody ever tried to escape from. You ever wonder who set social and economic policy for Nazi Germany? National socialism = nazi.
And now we have a clear admission from lad that he's a Socialist. He pines to be controlled and poor. I knew it.
Aannndddd I'm out.
When you jump to such a conclusion as labeling me a "socialist" when I haven't even come close to either stating that, or advocating for actual socialism, it's time to bow out.
My overarching point is that, you and your ilk are doing your own movement harm by labeling anything under the sun as "socialist." It waters down the term (making it harder to understand just how bad real communism/socialism are in implementation), further politicizes reasonable government policies (like increasing tax rates, mass health care, etc.), and pegs conservatives as a party beholden to the free market which doesn't value any form of government (i.e. going past a limited federal government).
Increased government action does not immediately mean socialism, but you and your ilk are so hell bent on doing that, that you think I'm a socialist for these past few posts.
Funny, both the dictionary definition of 'socialism' and the history of socialism have been presented to you here -- as they have been a number of times.
Yet you never fing bother to comment on the historical record. And you SCREAM at the dictionary definition that clearly notes that socialism can take a form of 'control through regulation' as opposed to your first shallow as hell attempt to restate both the philosophical and historical underpinnings as not necessarily requiring 'government ownership' -- that is, why bother with a confiscatory property taking when you can accomplish the same goals through the means of regulation.
But, you ignore that. And you ignore the other common facet of socialism, that such control be rooted in the concept of 'fairness' or 'equality'.
But when actually presented with that correction of your 'central tenet' -- you ignore it. Now you stamp your feet and sling poo on the wall, and ostensibly slam the door and leave. Quite the marvel there.
I will be happy to discuss the philosophical and historical underpinnings of 'socialist', and of 'collectivist'. And how the modern progressive movement has very deep ties to the mid-century experiments in non-state control socialism -- i.e. those that actually occurred in Italy and Germany from 1932 - 1945.
And yes, the term 'socialist' does fit the vast majority of the modern progressive thought in that frame. Bummer. Convince me otherwise and why that historical record doesnt apply.
Or you can just simply smash your fists against the wall and leave in a huff. Your choice.
(07-02-2020 09:22 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]It still means they are inherently OK with Trump sitting by idly if they're willing to vote for him - which was Trump's point about shooting someone on 5th Ave. It's not clear what Trump would have to do to get his supporters (and other conservatives) to not vote for him.
You can try and wash it away with the fact that the rationale of voting for Trump is primarily motivated by keeping Biden from the WH, but the pig you're putting lipstick on is still there. So don't try and argue it isn't.
First, as I understand it, there is still some question as to whether there is any real thing that Trump is "sitting idly by" about.
Second, I don't think those of you on the left truly comprehend just how distasteful the democrat issue positions are to us. There are several democrat issue positions that are absolute drop-dead show-stoppers for me, and for many of my fellow libertarians or conservatives. No matter who is the democrat or republican standard-bearer, as long as those items are on the standard, we aren't going there. Perhaps this will help you visualize it. We hate things like single-payer health care and wealth taxes and strict gun controls more than you hate Donald Trump.
So democrats are absolutely off the table as far as any consideration at all. That leaves a choice between Donald Trump, warts and all, or a libertarian candidate that has no chance of winning. So regardless of whether we are okay with Trump or not, we are definitely not okay with any democrat. I personally am not okay with Trump, and for that reason will almost certainly vote for libertarian Jo Jorgensen, even though her VP running mate is a severe nutcase. But issues matter to me far more than personalities. And democrats are totally disqualified on issues.
I don't think you people on the left fully understand just how strongly we disagree with virtually every issue position taken by democrats.