• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Bullshit Fox News Says

Post what she said and why it’s not factual.

We can start with "unemployment is low because everybody is now working two jobs" Not true

"Capitalism will not always exist" Not true

"What did you mean by the occupation of Palestine?" everything she says after that is bullshit.

and so on.
 
Jesus, catamount. She a smart woman with actual policy ideas who was legitimately elected. She is basically the antithesis of Trump.

This pic sums y'all up.

39979_900.png
 
We can start with "unemployment is low because everybody is now working two jobs" Not true

"Capitalism will not always exist" Not true

"What did you mean by the occupation of Palestine?" everything she says after that is bullshit.

and so on.

First one, sure. Second one you can’t prove either way, third one she’s out of her league.

She’s not even remotely in Trumps league when it comes to lying. You should just stop with this shit. Your comparison of AOC to Trump makes you look dumb and disingenuous. It’s a complete Fox News bullshit narrative to make a freshman congresswoman from Brooklyn out to be the Democratic Party Boogieman. Especially with all the certifiably insane GOP Congresspeople and Senators (and president) running around.
 
We can start with "unemployment is low because everybody is now working two jobs" Not true

"Capitalism will not always exist" Not true

"What did you mean by the occupation of Palestine?" everything she says after that is bullshit.

and so on.

I’m not understanding your take on her first claim.

As to your second - you’re wrong on this one. Capitalism has not always existed and it will cease to exist at some point. As Marx, the economic historian, once said, “all that is solid melts into air...”

As to your third - what in particular do you disagree with?
 
I’m not understanding your take on her first claim.

As to your second - you’re wrong on this one. Capitalism has not always existed and it will cease to exist at some point. As Marx, the economic historian, once said, “all that is solid melts into air...”

As to your third - what in particular do you disagree with?
First point is factually incorrect there are less people working second jobs as unemployment rates are declining.

A private market for goods will always exist in some form, regardless of government totalitarianism.
 
I don't know man I saw that quote and it is hard to tell that he was referring to coyotes on the border as actual animals. He probably was though, so that's sad. Actually it is hard to tell what Trump is meaning when he is talking about anything. The raw transcripts of what he says are pretty shocking.

You should watch the speech. He means actual coyotes.
 
Strickland is a True Believer. In my opinion that makes him hopelessly naive but it is what it is
 
Strickland is a True Believer. In my opinion that makes him hopelessly naive but it is what it is

Do you think that capitalism is a historical constant? I’m not sure that makes me the hopelessly naive one, though if by True Believer you mean student of history, then sure, I’ll take that one.
 
By Stardate 3030, money and capitalism will be considered as curious and outdated as going to the barber to use leeches...
 
First point is factually incorrect there are less people working second jobs as unemployment rates are declining.

A private market for goods will always exist in some form, regardless of government totalitarianism.

Oh, I see now. I agree with you re: 1.

A private market for goods in some form is not historically constant, man. I think AOC has you there. See any debate on historical “modes of production.”
 

A private market? For one, the idea of “the market” is historically fluid. The concept of “private” is, as well. Feudalism, for example, had a very different form and content in regards to both concepts. Troll all you like, but capitalism is neither natural nor inevitable.
 
It all depends on what the definition of the word "is" is
 
A private market? For one, the idea of “the market” is historically fluid. The concept of “private” is, as well. Feudalism, for example, had a very different form and content in regards to both concepts. Troll all you like, but capitalism is neither natural nor inevitable.


the fact that the concept of banking and consumer culture stretch back to antiquity doesn't do it for you, huh
 
Ancient rome had banking credit markets labor markets private ownership of the means of production contracts a global Marketplace
 
the fact that the concept of banking and consumer culture stretch back to antiquity doesn't do it for you, huh

I guess I'm just not a fan of historical reductionism when discussing history, but sure the form has existed in a somewhat loose sense for awhile. The "science" of history is to compare modes of production over time, how each understood economic activity, the relationship between public and private, and the ideological and moral apparatus that justified and sustained economic behavior. Myu point is only that what we understand as late capitalism is not a natural phenomenon or set of relations. I suppose that this a controversial take in these parts.

Ancient rome had banking credit markets labor markets private ownership of the means of production contracts a global Marketplace

How did credit work, though?

How were markets maintained?

Were norms and values of exchange and commerce similar then as they were now?

Did private ownership of the means of production - and its relation to citizenship - function in a similar way as they have since the advent of industrial capitalism?

What was the relationship between the public and private sphere then as opposed to now (not to mention in any number of important intermediary historical moments)?

Were global marketplaces functioning similarly as they do in the age of truly global supply chains?

Have conceptions of economic action and economic actors remained consistent over time?

Scholars such as Marx, Smith, Arendt, and Weber, among others, offer a variety of interesting answers to these questions. I don't pretend to know all of the answers. I'm not sure that any of us should, either.
 
I guess I'm just not a fan of historical reductionism when discussing history, but sure the form has existed in a somewhat loose sense for awhile. The "science" of history is to compare modes of production over time, how each understood economic activity, the relationship between public and private, and the ideological and moral apparatus that justified and sustained economic behavior. Myu point is only that what we understand as late capitalism is not a natural phenomenon or set of relations. I suppose that this a controversial take in these parts.



How did credit work, though?

How were markets maintained?

Were norms and values of exchange and commerce similar then as they were now?

Did private ownership of the means of production - and its relation to citizenship - function in a similar way as they have since the advent of industrial capitalism?

What was the relationship between the public and private sphere then as opposed to now (not to mention in any number of important intermediary historical moments)?

Were global marketplaces functioning similarly as they do in the age of truly global supply chains?

Have conceptions of economic action and economic actors remained consistent over time?

Scholars such as Marx, Smith, Arendt, and Weber, among others, offer a variety of interesting answers to these questions. I don't pretend to know all of the answers. I'm not sure that any of us should, either.

indeed, i think your own posts refute your assertion that private marketplace is a modern convention
 
Back
Top