Wake Up, America! Wake Up! PLEASE!!

Status
Not open for further replies.
My definition has not changed. Again you stated you didn't even know what the definition of socialism was.
You don't really have one, you just just keep backing yourself into a corner and making yourself look ridiculous.

When in reality we both know you are a liar. We both know you have posted your desire and love of socialism a time or two or more on this very forum. Oops did I just spoil your surprise.

Name calling again. Someone never learned manners in pre-school.

I've made it quite clear I'm a democratic socialist. I would favor a domestic policy that includes a strong social safety net and the nationalization of key industries, like Norway has. Depending on the weather that day when I talk to someone like you, that either means socialism or it means some form of capitalism.

As a side note, we already do nationalize some key industries. Take a look at what the Bureau of Reclamation does.

And since you are a socialist who needs Venezuela to be a capitalists failure because it serves as the trump card example of a rich capitalist country turned socialist turned just another failed country where the people die due to socialism.

Hugo was a South American Socialist Dictator who killed the richest country in South America with Socialism.
No, you never even asked me why I thought Venezuela's economy failed.

It wasn't "socialism". Every economist in the world could tell you quite easily why it failed: the price of oil dropped, and Venezuela was depending on oil to prop up its entire economy.

Any country the over-indexes on a single export commodity is at major risk, regardless of whether they're "socialist" or not. Mexico's economy collapsed when the price of coffee fell, because they were way over-reliant on their main export, which was coffee. That wasn't called a "failure of socialism", but the results were very close to what happened recently in Venezuela.
 
Trump ordered to pay $44,100 in Stormy Daniels legal fees ...
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-44100-in-stormy-daniels-legal-fees
10 hours ago · President Trump has been ordered by a California court to pay porn star Stormy Daniels’ $44,100 for her legal fees, after she sued the president over what she claimed was an invalid non ...

Judge orders Trump to pay legal fees to Stormy Daniels ...
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/...
19 hours ago · A California court ordered President Trump to pay $44,100 to Stephanie Clifford, the adult-film actress known as Stormy Daniels, to cover her legal fees
 
House passes bill to reverse Postal Service changes ...
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/house...
Aug 22, 2020 · WASHINGTON — The House passed a bill Saturday giving $25 billion in emergency funds to the U.S. Postal Service and reversing recent cost …

House Democrats pass $25bn bill to fund US Postal Service ...
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/aug/22/...
13 hours ago · The US House of Representatives has passed a bill to fund the US Postal Service, amid ongoing complaints by Democrats that the Trump administration …
 
You don't really have one, you just just keep backing yourself into a corner and making yourself look ridiculous.



Name calling again. Someone never learned manners in pre-school.

I've made it quite clear I'm a democratic socialist. I would favor a domestic policy that includes a strong social safety net and the nationalization of key industries, like Norway has. Depending on the weather that day when I talk to someone like you, that either means socialism or it means some form of capitalism.

As a side note, we already do nationalize some key industries. Take a look at what the Bureau of Reclamation does.


No, you never even asked me why I thought Venezuela's economy failed.

It wasn't "socialism". Every economist in the world could tell you quite easily why it failed: the price of oil dropped, and Venezuela was depending on oil to prop up its entire economy.

Any country the over-indexes on a single export commodity is at major risk, regardless of whether they're "socialist" or not. Mexico's economy collapsed when the price of coffee fell, because they were way over-reliant on their main export, which was coffee. That wasn't called a "failure of socialism", but the results were very close to what happened recently in Venezuela.

“You don't really have one, you just just keep backing yourself into a corner and making yourself look ridiculous.”

I guess you forgot you made the argument that “my [repeatedly stated] definition”, the textbook definition, of socialism proved you right that, “Venezuela is capitalist”. You know since you had the one questionable state of ‘70% free market GDP from Fox News’. I guess you forgot you beat that stat and the hopeful fantasy to death thinking “oh Fox proves me right, that’ll show him.”

You apparently forgot how many times your argued Venezuela isn’t socialist and that it was just like capitalist Norway. Oops

“No, you never even asked me why I thought Venezuela's economy failed.”

Oh, I guess you forgot you argued, more than once, Venezuela collapsed because it was capitalist.

And most real economist will tell you Venezuela collapsed because of its long standing corrupt socialist government’s policies, destruction of the free market, over borrowing, and failed central planning. Just like all of the other socialist/communist governments through history. The oil price collapse was the breeze that knocked the house of cards down. And now all those good socialists, that thought just like you think, are eating trash and rat wishing they could eat their pets again holding out hope the “evil American Capitalist” will step in and save them, again.

But then again you were the avowed socialist arguing Venezuela collapsed because of capitalism.

And no, a government quasi control of a market does not mean the government is socialist. A welfare safety net or corporate controls or corporate welfare is not socialism.

As an avowed Marxist/ Socialist you really are misinformed on your professed ideologue. Must be a Bernie Bro.
 
Actual recordings don't lie ... Trump Sister Speaks Out ... oh come on, please tell us these voices on the tape are NOT Trump's sister talking .... its got to be a ..... CONSPIRACY, right? Dark News. It took Trump less than one hour after the tapes hit the news for him to start tweeting about them.


.... but, tell us something we DON'T ALREADY KNOW ... !
As Timely as the Comey Hillary tapes this time 2016 ... it's word_KARMA.jpg Feels good, doesn't it Trumptards?

Trump-InJAIL2.jpg
 
Last edited:
GIF_GrouchoMarx.gif ... but, maybe Trump cheated and used Super Glue, right? Guess we'll know in 72 more days, huh?
political_TrumpsHouseOfCARDS.jpg
 
Last edited:
Even after telling you multiple times I was making an obvious argument of reductio ad absurdum / argument by contradiction, you still don't get it.

This is like trying to teach a dog to speak

oh I know you made this claim to save face, after your halfwit attempt to use Bolivia. You thought you were being clever, but none of your arguments proved indirect proof nor showed a conclusion that my premise would result in a logical contradiction.
 
Sorry, I apologize, I didn't realize I was speaking to someone with brain damage. I hope you get the treatment you need.
 
I gave several but you have a learning disability. Maybe you can try to get your doctor or your therapist to explain the posts to you at your next session.
 
Also don't use terms like ad-hominem before you understand what they mean, otherwise you look petty and dumb! Hope this helps you in your future endeavors.
 
I gave several but you have a learning disability. Maybe you can try to get your doctor or your therapist to explain the posts to you at your next session.
No you gave none.

You tried to misrepresent reality to fit your fantasy. Again you should understand the ideology you espouse to worship.
 
Also don't use terms like transference before you understand what they mean, otherwise you look petty and dumb! Hope this helps you in your future endeavors.
 
Also don't use terms like transference before you understand what they mean, otherwise you look petty and dumb! Hope this helps you in your future endeavors.
"Discussions" with you is like playing chess with a pigeon. It knocks all the pieces off, takes a ******* on the board and then struts around like it won.

How about you take the exchange on this topic and break it down on how your BS was "reductio ad absurdum" to my challenges to you. Now remember you think I have brain damage so be specific and clear.

But first why don't you detail your definition of Socialism, since you have clearly shown and stated you don't understand the academic and widely accepted actual definition of Socialism.
 
I made the reductio ad absurdum about as clear as I could. If you're still struggling with that, I really can't help you. You might have to take a logic class.

As for Socialism, it's a broad term, and runs the gamut from completely centralized economies including 5-year-plans a la China and the USSR, to nomadic hunter-gatherer societies, to regulated market economies with some nationalized industries a la most liberal democracies.

For example, New Zealand's current government is run by the Labour party, which is explicitly Democratic Socialist, similar to UK's labour party. Nobody thinks that China and New Zealand are the same, but both contain elements of socialism. Both also contain elements of Neoliberalism.

"Neoliberal" is probably a term you're not familiar with, but is an economic system associated with a encouraging private industry and removing regulations that prevent it from flourishing. The Koch brothers, who called themselves "classical liberals", would be great examples of people who push a neoliberal agenda (or did, until one of them died).

As with most things, it's a matter of degrees. You could line up 10 libertarians and ask them what exactly "limited government" means, and get 10 different answers. The same as you could line up 10 political parties with socialism in the name and get 10 different political platforms.
 
I made the reductio ad absurdum about as clear as I could. If you're still struggling with that, I really can't help you. You might have to take a logic class.

As for Socialism, it's a broad term, and runs the gamut from completely centralized economies including 5-year-plans a la China and the USSR, to nomadic hunter-gatherer societies, to regulated market economies with some nationalized industries a la most liberal democracies.

For example, New Zealand's current government is run by the Labour party, which is explicitly Democratic Socialist, similar to UK's labour party. Nobody thinks that China and New Zealand are the same, but both contain elements of socialism. Both also contain elements of Neoliberalism.

"Neoliberal" is probably a term you're not familiar with, but is an economic system associated with a encouraging private industry and removing regulations that prevent it from flourishing. The Koch brothers, who called themselves "classical liberals", would be great examples of people who push a neoliberal agenda (or did, until one of them died).

As with most things, it's a matter of degrees. You could line up 10 libertarians and ask them what exactly "limited government" means, and get 10 different answers. The same as you could line up 10 political parties with socialism in the name and get 10 different political platforms.
Ah just what I thought. You spewed a bunch or random ******* thinking you were cleaver and when you got called on it you run and hide behind reductio ad absurdum.

Wow what a load of *******, oops, I mean smug hubris mixed with Relativism spewing information with no understanding. Did you get an A in whatever bullshit modern interruptive dance class you were taking with this?

So basically you just tried to argue that almost the full economic spectrum and any political structure short of anarchy is socialisms.

There is a clear, fully accepted, definition with a few key elements that delineate socialism. Granted there may be a few minor points open for debate, but Socialism is clearly defined and you missed the mark by a mile. It is almost like you are trying to say any government regulation is socialism.

Since you like Wikipedia:
Neoliberalism or neo-liberalism[1] is the 20th-century resurgence of 19th-century ideas associated with economic liberalism and free-market capitalism.[2]:7[3] It is generally associated with policies of economic liberalization, including privatization, deregulation, globalization, free trade, austerity, and reductions in government spending in order to increase the role of the private sector in the economy and society;[4][12] however, the defining features of neoliberalism in both thought and practice have been the subject of substantial scholarly debate.[13][14] Neoliberalism constituted a paradigm shift away from the post-war Keynesian consensus which had lasted from 1945 to 1980


And from Britannica
Neoliberalism, ideology and policy model that emphasizes the value of free market competition. Although there is considerable debate as to the defining features of neoliberal thought and practice, it is most commonly associated with laissez-faire economics. In particular, neoliberalism is often characterized in terms of its belief in sustained economic growth as the means to achieve human progress, its confidence in free markets as the most-efficient allocation of resources, its emphasis on minimal state intervention in economic and social affairs, and its commitment to the freedom of trade and capital.


and then there is this take
Capitalism and Neoliberalism: What’s the Difference?
"It was put to me recently during a lecture, after posing a question in which I used the word ‘Neoliberalism,’ that the term “is problematic because it is nothing more than a synonym for Capitalism and therefore only confuses the issue.” It goes without saying that I didn’t agree. Capitalism and Neoliberalism are in many respects similar economic ideologies, but as socio-political realities they are very different beasts. Even the way in which we speak of them indicates that there is something of a difference between the two."

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top