(02-05-2019 10:35 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Lad -- I think the point being thrown here is in your very 'on the mark' comment of:

Quote:A prime example of the problem that the faux-news programs create. Lemon, Hannity, etc. really don't anchor news programs, but opinion programs. But the opinion programs operate like news programs, and so the line becomes incredibly blurred.

A cogent follow up to that is that a very good point can be made that the vast, vast majority of cable news, although it doesnt follow the prototypical fairly explicit delineation of news/opinion, actually can fall under the rubric of opinion.

A corollary to your first comment may be that the faux-news programs have in fact created faux-news networks overall.

I'd agree with that comment and critique - I just don't get why I need to provide a list of each anchor and their general newsworthiness. It seems like an exercise to try and trap me in some sort of gotcha that provides no value to the conversation.

We all seem to be in agreement that the programming on major news networks is lacking quite a bit.

(02-05-2019 10:40 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-05-2019 10:35 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Lad -- I think the point being thrown here is in your very 'on the mark' comment of:

Quote:A prime example of the problem that the faux-news programs create. Lemon, Hannity, etc. really don't anchor news programs, but opinion programs. But the opinion programs operate like news programs, and so the line becomes incredibly blurred.

A cogent follow up to that is that a very good point can be made that the vast, vast majority of cable news, although it doesnt follow the prototypical fairly explicit delineation of news/opinion, actually can fall under the rubric of opinion.

A corollary to your first comment may be that the faux-news programs have in fact created faux-news networks overall.

I'd agree with that comment and critique - I just don't get why I need to provide a list of each anchor and their general newsworthiness. It seems like an exercise to try and trap me in some sort of gotcha that provides no value to the conversation.

We all seem to be in agreement that the programming on major news networks is lacking quite a bit.

I see the problem - I was asking for your opinion and you thought it was a command/trap.

Watching the CNN commentary on the speech:

Van Jones - "psychotically incomprehensible, full of cookies and poop"
Cuomo - "We know he lies all the time. Let's see how he did tonight."
Maisie Hirono - He is busy trying to kill healthcare for Americans. He is an avowed sexual predator. He lies every day

Clearly unbiased. just the facts.

(02-06-2019 12:55 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Watching the CNN commentary on the speech:

Van Jones - "psychotically incomprehensible, full of cookies and poop"
Cuomo - "We know he lies all the time. Let's see how he did tonight."
Maisie Hirono - He is busy trying to kill healthcare for Americans. He is an avowed sexual predator. He lies every day

Clearly unbiased. just the facts.

I mean, the last two quotes are true...

I watched the PBS coverage and, while no one sounded as extreme as Van Jones, they did not sound that different than Cuomo when breaking down Trump’s speech.

(02-06-2019 07:30 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 12:55 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Watching the CNN commentary on the speech:
Van Jones - "psychotically incomprehensible, full of cookies and poop"
Cuomo - "We know he lies all the time. Let's see how he did tonight."
Maisie Hirono - He is busy trying to kill healthcare for Americans. He is an avowed sexual predator. He lies every day
Clearly unbiased. just the facts.

I mean, the last two quotes are true...

In your world, perhaps.

I guess two things about the "lying" stand out to me. One, they are generally more exaggerating than outright lies, which is a pretty typical behavior pattern for land developers. Two, they are mostly about matters of little consequence. How many times do you have to overstate your inaugural crowd (a stupid, stupid thing to exaggerate) in order to add unto one, "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor; if you like your health care plan, you cam keep your health care plan." One impacts millions, the other impacts nobody.

Quote:I watched the PBS coverage and, while no one sounded as extreme as Van Jones, they did not sound that different than Cuomo when breaking down Trump’s speech.

That's because Cuomo and PBS may lean slightly less toward the left than Van Jones.

I really cannot comprehend how Jones got his comments from that speech. I don't think that's where he got them.

(02-06-2019 08:11 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 07:30 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 12:55 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Watching the CNN commentary on the speech:
Van Jones - "psychotically incomprehensible, full of cookies and poop"
Cuomo - "We know he lies all the time. Let's see how he did tonight."
Maisie Hirono - He is busy trying to kill healthcare for Americans. He is an avowed sexual predator. He lies every day
Clearly unbiased. just the facts.

I mean, the last two quotes are true...

In your world, perhaps.

I guess two things about the "lying" stand out to me. One, they are generally more exaggerating than outright lies, which is a pretty typical behavior pattern for land developers. Two, they are mostly about matters of little consequence. How many times do you have to overstate your inaugural crowd (a stupid, stupid thing to exaggerate) in order to add unto one, "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor; if you like your health care plan, you cam keep your health care plan." One impacts millions, the other impacts nobody.

Quote:I watched the PBS coverage and, while no one sounded as extreme as Van Jones, they did not sound that different than Cuomo when breaking down Trump’s speech.

That's because Cuomo and PBS may lean slightly less toward the left than Van Jones.

I really cannot comprehend how Jones got his comments from that speech. I don't think that's where he got them.

Yep, lying to the entire world that North Korea is no longer a nuclear threat is just an overstatement that doesn’t affect anyone...

As Tanq loves to tell me, that’s a nice jug you’re dancing.

Who here caught the fact that the Democratic Speaker of the House deliberately refused to applaud the statement that the US will never be socialidt?

(02-06-2019 08:39 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 08:11 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 07:30 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 12:55 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Watching the CNN commentary on the speech:
Van Jones - "psychotically incomprehensible, full of cookies and poop"
Cuomo - "We know he lies all the time. Let's see how he did tonight."
Maisie Hirono - He is busy trying to kill healthcare for Americans. He is an avowed sexual predator. He lies every day
Clearly unbiased. just the facts.

I mean, the last two quotes are true...

In your world, perhaps.

I guess two things about the "lying" stand out to me. One, they are generally more exaggerating than outright lies, which is a pretty typical behavior pattern for land developers. Two, they are mostly about matters of little consequence. How many times do you have to overstate your inaugural crowd (a stupid, stupid thing to exaggerate) in order to add unto one, "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor; if you like your health care plan, you cam keep your health care plan." One impacts millions, the other impacts nobody.

Quote:I watched the PBS coverage and, while no one sounded as extreme as Van Jones, they did not sound that different than Cuomo when breaking down Trump’s speech.

That's because Cuomo and PBS may lean slightly less toward the left than Van Jones.

I really cannot comprehend how Jones got his comments from that speech. I don't think that's where he got them.

Yep, lying to the entire world that North Korea is no longer a nuclear threat is just an overstatement that doesn’t affect anyone...

As Tanq loves to tell me, that’s a nice jug you’re dancing.

who has that directly affected Lad? I can think of literally tens of millions that the Obamacare statement *directly* affected. Please do tell how many the Korea statement directly affected.

(02-06-2019 08:39 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 08:11 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 07:30 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 12:55 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Watching the CNN commentary on the speech:
Van Jones - "psychotically incomprehensible, full of cookies and poop"
Cuomo - "We know he lies all the time. Let's see how he did tonight."
Maisie Hirono - He is busy trying to kill healthcare for Americans. He is an avowed sexual predator. He lies every day
Clearly unbiased. just the facts.

I mean, the last two quotes are true...

In your world, perhaps.
I guess two things about the "lying" stand out to me. One, they are generally more exaggerating than outright lies, which is a pretty typical behavior pattern for land developers. Two, they are mostly about matters of little consequence. How many times do you have to overstate your inaugural crowd (a stupid, stupid thing to exaggerate) in order to add unto one, "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor; if you like your health care plan, you cam keep your health care plan." One impacts millions, the other impacts nobody.

Quote:I watched the PBS coverage and, while no one sounded as extreme as Van Jones, they did not sound that different than Cuomo when breaking down Trump’s speech.

That's because Cuomo and PBS may lean slightly less toward the left than Van Jones.
I really cannot comprehend how Jones got his comments from that speech. I don't think that's where he got them.

Yep, lying to the entire world that North Korea is no longer a nuclear threat is just an overstatement that doesn’t affect anyone...
As Tanq loves to tell me, that’s a nice jug you’re dancing.

Whom has North Korea attacked or threatened with attack?

Expecting their nuke program to go, "Poof," and disappear overnight is an outrageously unreasonable expectation. Having them tone it down--and they clearly have--is an important first step. Wherever this goes, it is hard to argue that significant progress has not been made.

(02-06-2019 08:46 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Who here caught the fact that the Democratic Speaker of the House deliberately refused to applaud the statement that the US will never be socialidt?

I thought I saw her clap slightly. Now, many Dems didn’t, and it’s because they know Trump wasn’t talking about actual socialism, but instead what him and other conservatives have tried to label as socialism - government programs that provide services (e.g. healthcare, childcare, etc.). It serves no purpose other than to induce the exact type of comment you just made.

Had Obama made a pointed comment about fascism, I doubt conservatives would have clapped, as it would have been viewed as the same eye-roll inducing jab.

(02-06-2019 08:56 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 08:39 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 08:11 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 07:30 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 12:55 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Watching the CNN commentary on the speech:
Van Jones - "psychotically incomprehensible, full of cookies and poop"
Cuomo - "We know he lies all the time. Let's see how he did tonight."
Maisie Hirono - He is busy trying to kill healthcare for Americans. He is an avowed sexual predator. He lies every day
Clearly unbiased. just the facts.

I mean, the last two quotes are true...

In your world, perhaps.
I guess two things about the "lying" stand out to me. One, they are generally more exaggerating than outright lies, which is a pretty typical behavior pattern for land developers. Two, they are mostly about matters of little consequence. How many times do you have to overstate your inaugural crowd (a stupid, stupid thing to exaggerate) in order to add unto one, "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor; if you like your health care plan, you cam keep your health care plan." One impacts millions, the other impacts nobody.

Quote:I watched the PBS coverage and, while no one sounded as extreme as Van Jones, they did not sound that different than Cuomo when breaking down Trump’s speech.

That's because Cuomo and PBS may lean slightly less toward the left than Van Jones.
I really cannot comprehend how Jones got his comments from that speech. I don't think that's where he got them.

Yep, lying to the entire world that North Korea is no longer a nuclear threat is just an overstatement that doesn’t affect anyone...
As Tanq loves to tell me, that’s a nice jug you’re dancing.

Whom has North Korea attacked or threatened with attack?

Expecting their nuke program to go, "Poof," and disappear overnight is an outrageously unreasonable expectation. Having them tone it down--and they clearly have--is an important first step. Wherever this goes, it is hard to argue that significant progress has not been made.

So what you’re saying is they’re still a threat, even though progress has been made.

Hmmmmmm.

Is it that hard to admit that Trump lies all the time about things big and small? This isn’t really a debatable observation - I can probably find dozens of articles documenting all of his lies if you would like.

(02-06-2019 08:52 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 08:39 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 08:11 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 07:30 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 12:55 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Watching the CNN commentary on the speech:
Van Jones - "psychotically incomprehensible, full of cookies and poop"
Cuomo - "We know he lies all the time. Let's see how he did tonight."
Maisie Hirono - He is busy trying to kill healthcare for Americans. He is an avowed sexual predator. He lies every day
Clearly unbiased. just the facts.

I mean, the last two quotes are true...

In your world, perhaps.

I guess two things about the "lying" stand out to me. One, they are generally more exaggerating than outright lies, which is a pretty typical behavior pattern for land developers. Two, they are mostly about matters of little consequence. How many times do you have to overstate your inaugural crowd (a stupid, stupid thing to exaggerate) in order to add unto one, "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor; if you like your health care plan, you cam keep your health care plan." One impacts millions, the other impacts nobody.

Quote:I watched the PBS coverage and, while no one sounded as extreme as Van Jones, they did not sound that different than Cuomo when breaking down Trump’s speech.

That's because Cuomo and PBS may lean slightly less toward the left than Van Jones.

I really cannot comprehend how Jones got his comments from that speech. I don't think that's where he got them.

Yep, lying to the entire world that North Korea is no longer a nuclear threat is just an overstatement that doesn’t affect anyone...

As Tanq loves to tell me, that’s a nice jug you’re dancing.

who has that directly affected Lad? I can think of literally tens of millions that the Obamacare statement *directly* affected. Please do tell how many the Korea statement directly affected.

Based on Owl#s comment, he said they were statements of little consequence - surprised you feel that NK’s nuclear ambitions are of little consequence.

But great hill to die on, that Donald Trump doesn’t tel lies. I see no reason to try and engage in this, there’s no way I’ll be able to change that opinion if you hold it.

(02-06-2019 08:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 08:46 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Who here caught the fact that the Democratic Speaker of the House deliberately refused to applaud the statement that the US will never be socialidt?

I thought I saw her clap slightly. Now, many Dems didn’t, and it’s because they know Trump wasn’t talking about actual socialism, but instead what him and other conservatives have tried to label as socialism - government programs that provide services (e.g. healthcare, childcare, etc.). It serves no purpose other than to induce the exact type of comment you just made.

Had Obama made a pointed comment about fascism, I doubt conservatives would have clapped, as it would have been viewed as the same eye-roll inducing jab.

So the main point for you is between 'real' socialism and plain jane 'normal' redistributive policies. Got it. Makes perfect sense.

Tell me where in this amazing distinction does the line appear for you?

(02-06-2019 09:08 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 08:52 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 08:39 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 08:11 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 07:30 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I mean, the last two quotes are true...

In your world, perhaps.

I guess two things about the "lying" stand out to me. One, they are generally more exaggerating than outright lies, which is a pretty typical behavior pattern for land developers. Two, they are mostly about matters of little consequence. How many times do you have to overstate your inaugural crowd (a stupid, stupid thing to exaggerate) in order to add unto one, "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor; if you like your health care plan, you cam keep your health care plan." One impacts millions, the other impacts nobody.

Quote:I watched the PBS coverage and, while no one sounded as extreme as Van Jones, they did not sound that different than Cuomo when breaking down Trump’s speech.

That's because Cuomo and PBS may lean slightly less toward the left than Van Jones.

I really cannot comprehend how Jones got his comments from that speech. I don't think that's where he got them.

Yep, lying to the entire world that North Korea is no longer a nuclear threat is just an overstatement that doesn’t affect anyone...

As Tanq loves to tell me, that’s a nice jug you’re dancing.

who has that directly affected Lad? I can think of literally tens of millions that the Obamacare statement *directly* affected. Please do tell how many the Korea statement directly affected.

Based on Owl#s comment, he said they were statements of little consequence - surprised you feel that NK’s nuclear ambitions are of little consequence.

But great hill to die on, that Donald Trump doesn’t tel lies. I see no reason to try and engage in this, there’s no way I’ll be able to change that opinion if you hold it.

Nice attempt at a deflection there lad. By the way you are the one equating impacts of lies. So again, how many people have been or are directly impacted by Trump's false statement?

I mean you are the one explicitly squawking about the number impacted so I would like you to follow up on *your* statement a tad more specifically.

(02-06-2019 09:22 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 08:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 08:46 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Who here caught the fact that the Democratic Speaker of the House deliberately refused to applaud the statement that the US will never be socialidt?

I thought I saw her clap slightly. Now, many Dems didn’t, and it’s because they know Trump wasn’t talking about actual socialism, but instead what him and other conservatives have tried to label as socialism - government programs that provide services (e.g. healthcare, childcare, etc.). It serves no purpose other than to induce the exact type of comment you just made.

Had Obama made a pointed comment about fascism, I doubt conservatives would have clapped, as it would have been viewed as the same eye-roll inducing jab.

So the main point for you is between 'real' socialism and plain jane 'normal' redistributive policies. Got it. Makes perfect sense.

Tell me where in this amazing distinction does the line appear for you?

Socialism:

Socialism, social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources. (https://www.britannica.com/topic/socialism)

any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism)

Tell me how specific policy positions, such as government funded childcare or healthcare are the exact equivalent to the state/public owning the entirety of the means of production.

This is a perfect example of how when everything is socialism, you lose sight on the actual definition of socialism. Venezuela nationalized their oil and gas company - so the government owned the means of production and distribution of goods. I'd draw the line at calling the government "socialist" if began owning and distributing natural resources, or owning complete monopolies on services.

(02-06-2019 09:28 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 09:08 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 08:52 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 08:39 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 08:11 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  In your world, perhaps.

I guess two things about the "lying" stand out to me. One, they are generally more exaggerating than outright lies, which is a pretty typical behavior pattern for land developers. Two, they are mostly about matters of little consequence. How many times do you have to overstate your inaugural crowd (a stupid, stupid thing to exaggerate) in order to add unto one, "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor; if you like your health care plan, you cam keep your health care plan." One impacts millions, the other impacts nobody.


That's because Cuomo and PBS may lean slightly less toward the left than Van Jones.

I really cannot comprehend how Jones got his comments from that speech. I don't think that's where he got them.

Yep, lying to the entire world that North Korea is no longer a nuclear threat is just an overstatement that doesn’t affect anyone...

As Tanq loves to tell me, that’s a nice jug you’re dancing.

who has that directly affected Lad? I can think of literally tens of millions that the Obamacare statement *directly* affected. Please do tell how many the Korea statement directly affected.

Based on Owl#s comment, he said they were statements of little consequence - surprised you feel that NK’s nuclear ambitions are of little consequence.

But great hill to die on, that Donald Trump doesn’t tel lies. I see no reason to try and engage in this, there’s no way I’ll be able to change that opinion if you hold it.

Nice attempt at a deflection there lad. By the way you are the one equating impacts of lies. So again, how many people have been or are directly impacted by Trump's false statement?

I mean you are the one explicitly squawking about the number impacted so I would like you to follow up on *your* statement a tad more specifically.

No deflection - you're trying to take me to task over something I didn't say. Owl#'s said that his lies were mostly about "matters of little consequence" - how is NK's nuclear ambitions of little consequence?

It does not directly affect anyone in the same way the Obama insurance line does, but if you don't think that people are indirectly affected by how the leader of our country discusses one of our main adversaries, then I guess you don't hold much, if any stock, in what Trump says.

For lies that directly affected people, Trump lied about the size of pay raises that military service members were going to receive (he said it would be 10%, it was 2.6%). He's lied about how Democrats want to end coverage for pre-existing conditions (they don't). He insulted Houstonians by lying and saying that they went out in their boats to watch Harvey. He's said the estate tax would affect millions of small business and farms (only 12k estates meet the threshold for the estate tax).

Want me to keep on going? I'm only on page 2 of the pants on fire lies of Donald Trump...

(02-06-2019 09:30 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 09:22 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 08:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 08:46 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Who here caught the fact that the Democratic Speaker of the House deliberately refused to applaud the statement that the US will never be socialidt?

I thought I saw her clap slightly. Now, many Dems didn’t, and it’s because they know Trump wasn’t talking about actual socialism, but instead what him and other conservatives have tried to label as socialism - government programs that provide services (e.g. healthcare, childcare, etc.). It serves no purpose other than to induce the exact type of comment you just made.

Had Obama made a pointed comment about fascism, I doubt conservatives would have clapped, as it would have been viewed as the same eye-roll inducing jab.

So the main point for you is between 'real' socialism and plain jane 'normal' redistributive policies. Got it. Makes perfect sense.

Tell me where in this amazing distinction does the line appear for you?

Socialism:

Socialism, social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources. (https://www.britannica.com/topic/socialism)

any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism)

Tell me how specific policy positions, such as government funded childcare or healthcare are the exact equivalent to the state/public owning the entirety of the means of production.

This is a perfect example of how when everything is socialism, you lose sight on the actual definition of socialism. Venezuela nationalized their oil and gas company - so the government owned the means of production and distribution of goods. I'd draw the line at calling the government "socialist" if began owning and distributing natural resources, or owning complete monopolies on services.

Actually that definition of socialism utterly ignores national socialism.

No state ownership of the means of production there and the roots of that and the hard version of collectivism are readily available historical fact.

Sorry lad. Your definition seems a little short.

From that definition it would be hard pressed to label the current Chinese as socialist which anyone who isnt willingly blind sees is not so.

The archetypal socialist regime has at its core the main principles. of collectivism and redistribution. The core tenets of modern progressivism. I suggest you look at the history of socialist theory.

(02-06-2019 09:55 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 09:30 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 09:22 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 08:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 08:46 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Who here caught the fact that the Democratic Speaker of the House deliberately refused to applaud the statement that the US will never be socialidt?

I thought I saw her clap slightly. Now, many Dems didn’t, and it’s because they know Trump wasn’t talking about actual socialism, but instead what him and other conservatives have tried to label as socialism - government programs that provide services (e.g. healthcare, childcare, etc.). It serves no purpose other than to induce the exact type of comment you just made.

Had Obama made a pointed comment about fascism, I doubt conservatives would have clapped, as it would have been viewed as the same eye-roll inducing jab.

So the main point for you is between 'real' socialism and plain jane 'normal' redistributive policies. Got it. Makes perfect sense.

Tell me where in this amazing distinction does the line appear for you?

Socialism:

Socialism, social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources. (https://www.britannica.com/topic/socialism)

any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism)

Tell me how specific policy positions, such as government funded childcare or healthcare are the exact equivalent to the state/public owning the entirety of the means of production.

This is a perfect example of how when everything is socialism, you lose sight on the actual definition of socialism. Venezuela nationalized their oil and gas company - so the government owned the means of production and distribution of goods. I'd draw the line at calling the government "socialist" if began owning and distributing natural resources, or owning complete monopolies on services.

Actually that definition of socialism utterly ignores national socialism.

No state ownership of the means of production there and the roots of that and the hard version of collectivism are readily available historical fact.

Sorry lad. Your definition seems a little short.

From that definition it would be hard pressed to label the current Chinese as socialist which anyone who isnt willingly blind sees is not so.

The archetypal socialist regime has at its core the main principles. of collectivism and redistribution. The core tenets of modern progressivism. I suggest you look at the history of socialist theory.

You do realize I gave you the sources of my definition, right? One of them being merriam-webster...

National socialism = nazism, by the way.

And you're pretty much making my point - that no one clapped at that line because what it was doing was trying to poke liberals by equating them to true socialists, as opposed to people who often advocate for similar policies to those of European countries. I've yet to see a major portion of the Democratic party advocate for Venezuelan style socialism by nationalizing our oil and gas reserves, or Chinese style authoritarian rule (I'm sure there are some out there, but they are certainly not in the majority).

And funnily your own provided definition of socialism doesnt cover your proffered example of Venezuela.

(02-06-2019 10:10 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  And funnily your own provided definition of socialism doesnt cover your proffered example of Venezuela.

I thought that Venezuela had nationalized their oil reserves and thus owned the means of production of a national resource?