• 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

AsesinoDeTortugas said:
I will wait to hear how you think that socialized universal health care doesn't make lives better. How a mandatory minimum wage that allows all workers to make a living wage and begin to retain wealth for hopefully generations to come doesn't make lives better. How free higher education, especially in an era of severe social and economic stratification, doesn't make lives better.

Socializing some aspects of civilized society will not make everyone's lives better to a man. But there can be no question that it will vastly benefit society as a whole.
Click to expand...

Universal healthcare and free higher education with regulated but open markets is not socialism though. That’s Social Liberalism and there is a huge difference between that and socialism.
 
Catamount might say dumb shit like “people shouldn’t borrow clothes for pictures” but at least I know he has a working definition of socialism.
 
You mean like you how you tried to only narrowly define co-ops to best suit your argument?

Again, I think I am applying a correct definition because *waves arms all around me* we see it every day.

I think I need to hash this out a bit more, but I think I'm making an argument of survivorship bias. In a capitalist economy, wouldn't co-ops be at a natural disadvantage? Does that mean they inherently don't work? Or just that they don't work in a society that values profit over people? Is there a flaw in that logic?
 
Probably because very very few Americans believe in actual socialism and very very few Americans believe in no socialism.

This opinion piece explains it.
https://www.tampabay.com/opinion/co...m-is-a-socialist-so-is-Ron-DeSantis_171463753

“The dictionary definition of socialism is a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned and regulated by the community as a whole. Let us concede, arguendo, that Medicare, the minimum wage and traditional public education are all socialist in intent, operation, and effect, as are Medicaid, workers’ compensation, unemployment insurance, and funding the delta between Social Security contributions and benefits to name but a few of the numerous "socialist" programs with which public policy in America is riddled.
To continue on the path on which we have set our feet, if supporting these socialist programs makes one a socialist, then Gillum is indeed a socialist, as is certainly almost every elected official in Florida, Democrats or Republicans. A phone booth could not be filled with politicians of any stripe who oppose Medicare, any minimum wage at all, and public schools.
But surely DeSantis is not a socialist. Yet, if he is not, then why is Gillum? It has to be because Gillum wants more, much more, of the things DeSantis also supports. Gillum wants more comprehensive health care coverage, a higher minimum wage and more money for schools. But that cannot be right either; disagreements about the appropriate scope of publicly subsidized health care coverage, what constitutes a living wage and how much is adequate education funding are the rule rather the exception, both between the two major political parties and within them.
Clearly, the differences between DeSantis and Gillum on these issues and other "socialist" programs are differences of degree, however great, not differences in kind.”
 
PhDeac said:
Probably because very very few Americans believe in actual socialism and very very few Americans believe in no socialism.

This opinion piece explains it.
https://www.tampabay.com/opinion/co...m-is-a-socialist-so-is-Ron-DeSantis_171463753

“The dictionary definition of socialism is a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned and regulated by the community as a whole. Let us concede, arguendo, that Medicare, the minimum wage and traditional public education are all socialist in intent, operation, and effect, as are Medicaid, workers’ compensation, unemployment insurance, and funding the delta between Social Security contributions and benefits to name but a few of the numerous "socialist" programs with which public policy in America is riddled.
To continue on the path on which we have set our feet, if supporting these socialist programs makes one a socialist, then Gillum is indeed a socialist, as is certainly almost every elected official in Florida, Democrats or Republicans. A phone booth could not be filled with politicians of any stripe who oppose Medicare, any minimum wage at all, and public schools.
But surely DeSantis is not a socialist. Yet, if he is not, then why is Gillum? It has to be because Gillum wants more, much more, of the things DeSantis also supports. Gillum wants more comprehensive health care coverage, a higher minimum wage and more money for schools. But that cannot be right either; disagreements about the appropriate scope of publicly subsidized health care coverage, what constitutes a living wage and how much is adequate education funding are the rule rather the exception, both between the two major political parties and within them.
Clearly, the differences between DeSantis and Gillum on these issues and other "socialist" programs are differences of degree, however great, not differences in kind.”
Click to expand...

I mean, if you are a socialist, then the question isn't really "degree" of socialism. There is a relative spectrum of socialist ideology out there (and DSA's brand of socialism is an example of one form of socialism), but we're still talking about coherent ideologies. It's just like if you are a democrat. If you're a liberal democrat, then the question shouldn't be the degree to which you'll prescribe to Liberal Democratic political ideology. If you start talking in degrees, then you probably don't prescribe to the ideology in the first place...
 
ding ding ding. I'm not sure RJ gets that capitalism and socialism are opposing forces. Can free market, capitalist economies have nationalized programs? Yes. Is that socialism? No. RJ continues to say the best is a blend of both. Ok. What does that mean? Does that mean you are a social democrat? If so, you would probably fight for a lot of the same reforms that DSA is fighting for. If not, you are a democrat/liberal. From RJ's amorphous definition, I can't really tell what he believes.
 
MHBDemon said:
You mean like you how you tried to only narrowly define co-ops to best suit your argument?

Again, I think I am applying a correct definition because *waves arms all around me* we see it every day.

I think I need to hash this out a bit more, but I think I'm making an argument of survivorship bias. In a capitalist economy, wouldn't co-ops be at a natural disadvantage? Does that mean they inherently don't work? Or just that they don't work in a society that values profit over people? Is there a flaw in that logic?
Click to expand...

Take it up with Webster
 
Fox News hires Ben Shapiro to host a special midterm election show that will examine "facts and logic."
 
WFFaithful said:
Fox News hires Ben Shapiro to host a special midterm election show that will examine "facts and logic."
Click to expand...

FFS, this guy is a moron. Wonder if NED thinks he is an adherent of "healthy conservatism."
 
MHBDemon said:
FFS, this guy is a moron. Wonder if NED thinks he is an adherent of "healthy conservatism."
Click to expand...
I've had so SO many smart Republican friends recommend Ben Shapiro. It's fucking sad. It tells you 2 things:

1. Denouncing Trump buys you so much more cache than you deserve.

2. Elitists will believe any bullshit if it comes from a guy wearing a blazer, speaking like an academic.
 
Yes, but another bad take is also “this guy is no William Buckley” when that guy was a racist fuck disguising as an intellectual as well.
 
WFFaithful said:
Fox News hires Ben Shapiro to host a special midterm election show that will examine "facts and logic."
Click to expand...

LOL. I'm sure that by the end of the show Shapiro will conclude that everyone watching should vote a straight GOP ticket in every single state because it's only "logical." And he'll say it with a straight face, and his Fox viewers will congratulate themselves on what great independent thinkers they are, unlike all the librul "sheeple" who don't watch Fox News 24/7.
 
MHBDemon said:
ding ding ding. I'm not sure RJ gets that capitalism and socialism are opposing forces. Can free market, capitalist economies have nationalized programs? Yes. Is that socialism? No. RJ continues to say the best is a blend of both. Ok. What does that mean? Does that mean you are a social democrat? If so, you would probably fight for a lot of the same reforms that DSA is fighting for. If not, you are a democrat/liberal. From RJ's amorphous definition, I can't really tell what he believes.
Click to expand...

I have not been "amorphous" at all. I've explained why a "pure" of either socialism or capitalism can't work. But you ignore everything that doesn't kowtow to you or has nuance. You "can't tell" because you don't want to (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt).

Capitalism and socialism are not opposing forces. They can and do work together in many places. Many countries have privately owned businesses and property as well as socialized medicine, free education and other social services.

Saying I oppose nationalizing banks or oil companies or other businesses is not saying they shouldn't be better regulated. There's been no one on the Wake boards who has been more supportive of unions and a living wage than I have been over the past 25+ years.

I've seen first hand what happens when government owns everything like they did in the USSR. Brilliant technology and business people are basically helpless to fix things and to help the people you supposedly support.

Without incentives great inventions, medical breakthroughs, etc., are are far less likely.

But none of this is good enough for you.
 
Lol. What you are describing is totally an amorphous ideology. If you don’t think it’s amorphous, then define it. Are you a social democrat? What is the right blend of capitalism and socialism? You are conflating social welfare spending or intervention in free markets as “socialism.” You can’t be a socialist and a capitalist. The interests of capital are opposed to the interests of labor.
 
MHBDemon said:
Lol. What you are describing is totally an amorphous ideology. If you don’t think it’s amorphous, then define it. Are you a social democrat? What is the right blend of capitalism and socialism? You are conflating social welfare spending or intervention in free markets as “socialism.” You can’t be a socialist and a capitalist. The interests of capital are opposed to the interests of labor.
Click to expand...

images
 
MHBDemon said:
Lol. What you are describing is totally an amorphous ideology. If you don’t think it’s amorphous, then define it. Are you a social democrat? What is the right blend of capitalism and socialism? You are conflating social welfare spending or intervention in free markets as “socialism.” You can’t be a socialist and a capitalist. The interests of capital are opposed to the interests of labor.
Click to expand...

Of course you can be partially both. But not in your world of purity. The concept of litmus, purity that your far right brethren share with you.

The concept that capital and labor can't work together is crap. It's also crap to think you can change a $20T free market economy into a purely socialist state.

For about the fifth I've mentioned it, you ignore the human concept that incentives are critical to discovery and the expansion of a society. Well, until man evolves, which isn't happening any time in the next century or two barring a worldwide cataclysmic event.

Another problem with your concept of nationalizing everything is that the rest of the world has no inclination to act in a similar war. With the economies of the world becoming more intertwined by the day, you'd have to get them to enact your policies at the same time.
 
RJ your arguments are not persuasive because they are not backed up by anything. The “we haven’t evolved enough” argument is terrible because it’s a point in time which you can’t define. But we know that man has evolved enough to live and care for each other collectively.

As I’ve said for the millionth fucking time, you are confusing me wanting to define an ideology with a call for purity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top