Jim Carrey: 'We Have to Say Yes to Socialism'

[Chris]

Comedian laments GOP attacks on socialism-friendly Democrats



Comedian Jim Carrey says Democrats need to stop running from Republican attacks and “say yes to socialism”

“We have to say yes to socialism — to the word and everything,” Mr. Carrey said Friday on HBO’s “Real Time with Bill Maher.” “We have to stop apologizing.”

His comment came after Mr. Maher complained that Republicans have targeted progressive Democrats who identify themselves as socialist by throwing up the Venezuela example.

“But that word — the Democrats need to get a plan to fight this slander of, ‘Socialism, you’re going to be living in Venezuela,’ ” Mr. Maher said. “And I don’t see it yet.”

Republicans pounced after a number of up-and-coming left-wing candidates — led by New York’s Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a member of the Democratic Socialists of America — picked off established Democrats in this year’s primary contests.

Mr. Maher described the Democratic Party’s move to the left in reaction to President Trump’s 2016 victory as a “shining spot.”

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/sep/9/jim-carrey-we-have-say-yes-socialism/


1038260220856819712

[boutons_deux]

failing Capitalsm sucks, is why America is fucked and unfuckable

[ElNono]

He's correct. There's nothing inherently wrong about socialism. Heck, the US has a ton on socialist-style programs, including the Military.

[ElNono]

The notion that it's either capitalism or socialism is wrong. They can coexist depending on the context. And reasonable arguments can be made where capitalism works on certain areas, and socialism makes sense in others.

[Chris]

He's correct. There's nothing inherently wrong about socialism.

Except for the fact that it always leads to communism. Collectivism in general is a pipedream and relies on 0% bad actors. It will never work.

[pgardn]

Canadian.

Hes seen government sponsored programs work, and not work.
Shocker.

[pgardn]

Except for the fact that it always leads to communism. Collectivism in general is a pipedream and relies on 0% bad actors. It will never work.

Political scientist on the loose!

Chris knows his history.

[Chris]

Political scientist on the loose!

Chris knows his history.

Nothing new under the sun. We are meant to learn from our mistakes, not repeat them. Socialism is big mistake.

[DMC]

The problem isn't socialist ideals. The problem is that "socialism" is a form of government, and when you try to mix it with capitalism and other "isms" it isn't socialism. It's like saying Islam is peaceful if you don't follow the tenets closely. There's no reason to use terms like socialism or capitalism if your system isn't either of them, which it actually isn't if you actually adhere to the definition of each instead of trying to rewrite the english language to make a point.

Also, Jim Carrey is a nutjob. How much of his wealth do you think he's spread around to the needy?

[Mikeanaro]

Fuck this weirdo, would love to hear his take on how he gave pills to his ex and she died.

[ElNono]

Except for the fact that it always leads to communism.

Except that it doesn't. I can give you as many examples as you want about socialism used in contexts where capitalism can't fit the bill. Even in the US. None devolved in communism.

[ElNono]

The problem isn't socialist ideals. The problem is that "socialism" is a form of government, and when you try to mix it with capitalism and other "isms" it isn't socialism. It's like saying Islam is peaceful if you don't follow the tenets closely. There's no reason to use terms like socialism or capitalism if your system isn't either of them, which it actually isn't if you actually adhere to the definition of each instead of trying to rewrite the english language to make a point.

Socialism is a range of both economic and social theories. You could create a form of government solely based on that, much like you could create a form of government based solely on capitalism.

In reality the world borrows from each where it makes sense, even if one of the systems is heavily favored over the other. They can both clearly coexist under democracies or any other form of government.

That's why demonizing the word socialism makes no sense. Almost every area of government that's either revenue neutral or a revenue loser runs some form of socialism, due to a higher mission (national security, social programs, law enforcement, etc).

[pgardn]

Nothing new under the sun. We are meant to learn from our mistakes, not repeat them. Socialism is big mistake.

Sure.

The problem is you are dead wrong.

[pgardn]

Except for the fact that it always leads to communism. Collectivism in general is a pipedream and relies on 0% bad actors. It will never work.

sure...

[ElNono]

"Those commies in the UK and Canada with their socialist healthcare system" said nobody ever... and the UK had that program running since WWII... they really are due for turning into commies :rolleyes

[Chris]

Yeah the good ol' UK who decided to murder Charlie Gard and not release him to his parents for special treatment outside the country. Good ol' Socialist healthcare making the tough decisions for you and your family.

Sounds great!

[ElNono]

Yeah the Charlie Gard case really defines UK's last 80 years and their alliance to communism...

This is why people can't take you seriously, tbh, and likely why Twitter flagged you as a bot...

[dabom]

US killed 6 million Vietnamese for Capitalism. :lmao

[ElNono]

US killed 6 million Vietnamese for Capitalism. :lmao

But Charlie Gard...

[dabom]

Yeah the Charlie Gard case really defines UK's last 80 years and their alliance to communism...

This is why people can't take you seriously, tbh, and likely why Twitter flagged you as a bot...

One single event nulls everything. :lol

[pgardn]

Yeah the good ol' UK who decided to murder Charlie Gard and not release him to his parents for special treatment outside the country. Good ol' Socialist healthcare making the tough decisions for you and your family.

Sounds great!

Well now you will just run straight sideways...

wtf...

[FrostKing]

Imagine the debate over borders and LEGAL immigration if USA went socialist

Whoa. Socialism changes EVERYTHING. Prepare to have people judging what food you are intaking and how you are raising your children if socialism were inacted.

"Do what you want, it doesn't effect me" is thrown out the window under socialism. Doesn't work in a multicultural nation. Western/Northern European nations are increasingly being hit with this reality.

[Mikeanaro]

And who is going to bring socialism??? Bernie ¨3 mansions¨ Sanders?

In an essay lamenting what he described as the intractable income inequality of the American economy, (http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/must-read/close-the-gaps-disparities-that-threaten-america) Senator Sanders declared: “These days, the American dream is more apt to be realized in South America, in places such as Ecuador, Venezuela and Argentina, where incomes are actually more equal today than they are in the land of Horatio Alger.”

[Mikeanaro]

Doesn't work in a multicultural nation.
Exactly.

[MultiTroll]

The notion that it's either capitalism or socialism is wrong. They can coexist depending on the context. And reasonable arguments can be made where capitalism works on certain areas, and socialism makes sense in others.

[Blake]

Except for the fact that it always leads to communism. Collectivism in general is a pipedream and relies on 0% bad actors. It will never work.

You mean like Trumps Harvest Box idea?

[Blake]

Except for the fact that it always leads to communism.

Oh yeah

:lmao :lmao Chris

[ElNono]

And who is going to bring socialism??? Bernie ¨3 mansions¨ Sanders?

In an essay lamenting what he described as the intractable income inequality of the American economy, (http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/must-read/close-the-gaps-disparities-that-threaten-america) Senator Sanders declared: “These days, the American dream is more apt to be realized in South America, in places such as Ecuador, Venezuela and Argentina, where incomes are actually more equal today than they are in the land of Horatio Alger.”

Not Venezuela, but he's right otherwise, tbh... also, I thought Macri was gone a week ago... Cristi waiting in the wings, tbh lol

[ElNono]

Imagine the debate over borders and LEGAL immigration if USA went socialist

Whoa. Socialism changes EVERYTHING. Prepare to have people judging what food you are intaking and how you are raising your children if socialism were inacted.

"Do what you want, it doesn't effect me" is thrown out the window under socialism. Doesn't work in a multicultural nation. Western/Northern European nations are increasingly being hit with this reality.

Almost every big socialist country in South America last decade had pretty much open borders (Mikeanaro can confirm). The problem is you think about socialism from a capitalist standpoint, tbh... your American education is showing.

[ElNono]

I can almost imagine the same rallying cry a century ago: "Imagine if America had unions! wow!"

[Winehole23]

Except for the fact that it always leads to communism. Collectivism in general is a pipedream and relies on 0% bad actors. It will never work.We already have a mixed system. For going on 70 years.

Mightily reinforced, it might be added, ten years ago when the system of payment became insolvent. In a capitalist system, banks, non-bank lenders and equity holders would have gone bust. What did we do?

We made the banks and equity holders whole through QE, financial repression (i.e., artificially low interest rates) and direct government aid. We nationalized mortgage lending and auto companies, and we put the whole cost on the US taxpayer.

Gold-plated socialism for the 1%, bootstrap capitalism for the rest of us.

Truth be told, we're all socialists now. We're the backstop for the misadventures of the top decile.

[Winehole23]

Bush/Obama and the US Congress shielded the elite from accountability and socialized the cost of bailing out the financial sector.

So in a way, Chris, you have socialism to thank for Trump getting elected.

[Mikeanaro]

Not Venezuela, but he's right otherwise, tbh... also, I thought Macri was gone a week ago... Cristi waiting in the wings, tbh lol
Lol, those are golpistas trying to take him down because that old bitch could go to jail, Peronismo sucks.

He is not right, Ecuador, Venezuela and Argentina are terrible examples.
Here we are taking money away from people that worked 30 years, we split it and gave the other half to retire people who never paid aportes in their entire lives, and then taxes are extremely high to pay ¨plans¨ to villeros and they never worked at all... been getting money for doing nothing over the last 15 years.
Thats a catastrophic way to fix inequality.

[Mikeanaro]

Almost every big socialist country in South America last decade had pretty much open borders (Mikeanaro can confirm). The problem is you think about socialism from a capitalist standpoint, tbh... your American education is showing.
Yeah, I can confirm that.

[ElNono]

Lol, those are golpistas trying to take him down because that old bitch could go to jail, Peronismo sucks.

He is not right, Ecuador, Venezuela and Argentina are terrible examples.
Here we are taking money away from people that worked 30 years, we split it and gave the other half to retire people who never paid aportes in their entire lives, and then taxes are extremely high to pay ¨plans¨ to villeros and they never worked at all... been getting money for doing nothing over the last 15 years.
Thats a catastrophic way to fix inequality.

I don't think he's talking about corruption, which is indeed a major problem in all those countries. What he's talking about is strong unions and difficulty in pushing around employees.

Now we can discuss all aspects of unions and there's the good or bad, but I was looking at the developing situation in Argentina with the inflation rate going up 30% and the government siding with employers in handing out a 15% raise to salaries, and that's just plain wrong. I understand business owners want to make more money, but there's little remedy for employees if they don't band together, at least against the most egregious abuses.

You can see that happening on the business owners side too, with grain producers banding together to fight against export taxes. Inequality or equality doesn't happen just in a vacuum. There are forces at play, some with more power than can tilt the balance, and if you want to balance it, you need just as strong a counter-force.

Now we can talk about all the bad things about unions, like forced membership payments, abuse of power, etc.

[FrostKing]

Almost every big socialist country in South America last decade had pretty much open borders (Mikeanaro can confirm). The problem is you think about socialism from a capitalist standpoint, tbh... your American education is showing.
I like socialism just not with multiculturalism.

USA must always remain a rat race if it also intends to be the land of opportunity

[Winehole23]

who are you to lecture us rats?

[ElNono]

I like socialism just not with multiculturalism.

USA must always remain a rat race if it also intends to be the land of opportunity

Don't take it personally, I was just pointing out that it's fairly common for Americans to see things through individualism, because that's what's ingrained in them.

The example you put together was actually a text-book case. From an individualist optic, if there's a pie for 10 people, adding an 11th person is a (personal) affront. That 11th person might be a cook that can make pies for everybody, but the first instinct is to think about it in terms of me and mine.

I'm not going to berate anybody for thinking in those terms, but that line of thinking is closer to dogma, and in that sense, it makes it more difficult to have an expansive view of the problems and solutions.

[Spurtacular]

Comedian laments GOP attacks on socialism-friendly Democrats





1038260220856819712

I saw the show interview days ago (about 15 min). He put a big happy blissful face on it and all; but he didn't say anything egregious otherwise. He has TDS a bit; but it's nowhere near as bad as most.

[Winehole23]

you know who has TDS the worst?

Donald J. Trump.

[Chris]

you know who has TDS the worst?

Donald J. Trump.

No, that makes no sense.

Next.

[Winehole23]

who is more occupied with Trump than Trump?

it makes little sense to say otherwise.

[Winehole23]

btw, I replied directly to you upstream, topically related, do you have a reply to that Chris?

[Chris]

Who is more occupied with Winehole23 than Winehole23?

It makes little sense to say otherwise.

See, nothing profound there.

You may have early stages of TDS. Be careful.

[Winehole23]

or will you ignore and run away, or call someone a troll, like you usually do when you can't think of a reply?

[Winehole23]

Who is more occupied with Winehole23 than Winehole23?

It makes little sense to say otherwise.

See, nothing profound there.

You may have early stages of TDS. Be careful.I spend close to zero time talking about WH23.

The same can't be said of Trump.

[Chris]

My replies take little more than 30 seconds to contrive. No one is running away. You're just used to everything on demand like most entitled individuals.

[Winehole23]

Illeism

[Mikeanaro]

I don't think he's talking about corruption, which is indeed a major problem in all those countries. What he's talking about is strong unions and difficulty in pushing around employees.

Now we can discuss all aspects of unions and there's the good or bad, but I was looking at the developing situation in Argentina with the inflation rate going up 30% and the government siding with employers in handing out a 15% raise to salaries, and that's just plain wrong. I understand business owners want to make more money, but there's little remedy for employees if they don't band together, at least against the most egregious abuses.

You can see that happening on the business owners side too, with grain producers banding together to fight against export taxes. Inequality or equality doesn't happen just in a vacuum. There are forces at play, some with more power than can tilt the balance, and if you want to balance it, you need just as strong a counter-force.

Now we can talk about all the bad things about unions, like forced membership payments, abuse of power, etc.
Its not just the example, Dems have all media thats why Barrack was so great for them everything was perfect just like the Ks had 10 channels radios and papers here, Hilda got money from those countries that kills gays and lesbians just like the Kirchners had money from Chavez.
Chavez did the same with media.

Now media is all day bashing Trump like he is a criminal not one thing is right about him, and he is doing great with economy.
Macri is being bashed all day long, economy is not great but you see the blind hate everything sucks.
Maduro is not being bashed at all.

Open borders are great to get votes and then do whatever they like, just like Hilda was against little children crossing the border and now POOR BABIES!!!
Same Schumer and all those clowns.
Why they changed their minds so fast?

USA is full of corruption too, the FBI is a fine example.

That country needs to keep better and better with closed borders, and then decide if they want to go socialist.
But not in the middle of illegals, crazy forced racism, one sided fbi, wacko clowns like Jim Carrey and all that freak show Dems are doing.

If you want something clean and transparent first you must have a good foundation, thats not USA case right now.

[Winehole23]

My replies take little more than 30 seconds to contrive. No one is running away. You're just used to everything on demand like most entitled individuals.That's not a topical reply. It's an excuse.

[Winehole23]

It took you more than 30 seconds, and it wasn't responsive.

Good work!

[Chris]

I spend close to zero time talking about WH23.

The same can't be said of Trump.

Tweets helped him circumvent the biased media and win the election. People from NYC like to brag and they don't take any shit. You claim he is a narcissist but I see this as little more than projection.

[Spurtacular]

Who is more occupied with Winehole23 than Winehole23?

It makes little sense to say otherwise.

See, nothing profound there.

You may have early stages of TDS. Be careful.

:lol Early stages?

[Chris]

That's not a topical reply. It's an excuse.

Doing the forum cop thingy now eh?

[Chris]

:lol Early stages?

:lol

[Winehole23]

Doing the forum cop thingy now eh?Not at all. You were pretending to have a topical take, but you were just trolling me.

We were talking about socialism, 'member?

[Chris]

Not at all. You were pretending to have a topical take, but you were just trolling me.

We were talking about socialism, 'member?

No, you were berating Trump for tweeting about himself. What's your opinions/takes on Socialism?

[Winehole23]

Tweets helped him circumvent the biased media and win the election. People from NYC like to brag and they don't take any shit. You claim he is a narcissist but I see this as little more than projection.I see you protecting Trump by saying, that's just the way a rich kid from Queens born with a silver spoon in his mouth, and a rich daddy who bailed him out, and bankruptcy laws that allowed him to leave his creditors and investors in the ditch six times, who talks about himself all the time, is.

How would you know anything about that?

[Winehole23]

No, you were berating Trump for tweeting about himself. What's your opinions/takes on Socialism?Upstream, take a look.

We already have it here. Have for 70 years. What is the New Deal? What is the Great Society? What is Medicare Part D? What is Obamacare?

Renewed it for the top decile when we bailed out the financial sector ten years ago.

Are you paying attention?

[Winehole23]

We have farm subsidies, we have legislative subsidies and incentives.

We have tax incentives and abatements for corporations.

Are these not socialism too?

[Winehole23]

well, we're waiting...

[Mikeanaro]

I see you protecting Trump by saying, that's just the way a rich kid from Queens born with a silver spoon in his mouth, and a rich daddy who bailed him out, and bankruptcy laws that allowed him to leave his creditors and investors in the ditch six times, who talks about himself all the time, is.

How would you know anything about that?
Being born rich is a sin?

Bill Gates saved Apple from bankruptcy, are they losers?

[Winehole23]

Upstream, take a look.

We already have it here. Have for 70 years. What is the New Deal? What is the Great Society? What is Medicare Part D? What is Obamacare?

Renewed it for the top decile when we bailed out the financial sector ten years ago.

Are you paying attention?Well, Chris?

[Chris]

I asked you for your takes and opinions on Socialism not for you to ask me a bunch of questions. You tried at least :tu

[Chris]

Well, Chris?

I'm doing other things, not hovering over the keyboard lurking Spurstalk. You should try to be more patient.

[Winehole23]

Being born rich is a sin?

Bill Gates saved Apple from bankruptcy, are they losers?Not at all.

Is biting off more than you can chew and leaving lenders and investors holding the bag -- six times -- reputable?

[Winehole23]

There's a reason US banks stopped lending money to DJT.

Are you familiar with it?

[Winehole23]

I'm doing other things, not hovering over the keyboard lurking Spurstalk. You should try to be more patient.Hah, you're too busy to answer, but not too busy to answer in brief.

[Winehole23]

no opinion?

you have to research it?

[Winehole23]

I asked you for your takes and opinions on Socialism not for you to ask me a bunch of questions. You tried at least :tuthat was a take.

the US system is not straight capitalism.

it's been mixed since the 1930s. and ever since.

[Winehole23]

you can actually go back a little further than that to TR and progressive Republicanism, and further back than that to the reconstruction and Civil War pensions, but I doubt you really care about any of that.

[Chris]

that was a take.

the US system is not straight capitalism.

it's been mixed since the 1930s. and ever since.

Mixed socialism since and ever since. Got it.

[Mikeanaro]

Not at all.

Is biting off more than you can chew and leaving lenders and investors holding the bag reputable?

Nope, just like leaving office with 15 mil and now having like 300 mil by ¨speaking¨ is not reputable at all.
Or taking all the money that was for Haiti.

Businesses have risks, thats a fact.
Making a fortune using the public administration and also leaving Haitians rot is a whole different game.

[Winehole23]

and if you want to go a little further back, the mid 19th century Whiggism put a big emphasis on infrastructure and public works. the 19th century version of MAGA, so to speak.

[Winehole23]

Nope, just like leaving office with 15 mil and now having like 300 mil by ¨speaking¨ is not reputable at all.
Or taking all the money that was for Haiti.

Businesses have risks, thats a fact.
Making a fortune using the public administration and also leaving Haitians rot is a whole different game.whataboutism.

talking about HRC doesn't exonerate DJT.

Weak.

[Winehole23]

Mixed socialism since and ever since. Got it.you disagree?

what's your take Chris?

what do you think about corporate welfare and bailing out insolvent banks?

[Winehole23]

you can actually go back a little further than that to TR and progressive Republicanism, and further back than that to the reconstruction and Civil War pensions, but I doubt you really care about any of that.actually. I'm curious.

what do you think about these, Chris?

[Winehole23]

trust-busting?

public health laws?

[Mikeanaro]

whataboutism.

talking about HRC doesn't exonerate DJT.

Weak.
You are pulling the ¨Dont name HRC¨ card, what are you hiding?
Never said DJT should be exonerated, but at the same time he used his own resources, not the public administration as a catapult to make a shit-ton of money.

[Winehole23]

public schools for ******s?

separate but equal of course.

[Winehole23]

You are pulling the ¨Dont name HRC¨ card, what are you hiding?
Never said DJT should be exonerated, but at the same time he used his own resources, not the public administration as a catapult to make a shit-ton of money.He used US bankruptcy laws to screw banks and investors.

DJT also has a long track record of stiffing contractors.

I'm sure you'll try to apologize for all that too.

[Mikeanaro]

He used US bankruptcy laws to screw banks and investors.

DJT also has a long track record of stiffing contractors.

I'm sure you'll try to apologize for all that too.
He used the laws, is that illegal???

[Winehole23]

Nope, but you just apologized for it.

It isn't illegal. :cry

[Chris]

you disagree?

what's your take Chris?

what do you think about corporate welfare and bailing out insolvent banks?

I think ending the Federal Banking System would alleviate the majority of the problems we have with corruption within the government.

Welfare needs reform and required drug testing.

I'm also for ending the income tax and overhauling the IRS.

[Mikeanaro]

Nope, but you just apologized for it.

It isn't illegal. :cry
If is not illegal then why apologize?
Business have risks.
Welcome to America Winehole.

[Winehole23]

I think ending the Federal Banking System would alleviate the majority of the problems we have with corruption within the government.

Welfare needs reform and required drug testing.

I'm also for ending the income tax and overhauling the IRS.Drug testing already flopped. Expense outweighed the fraud abated everywhere it was measured.

Getting rid of fractional reserve banking is a non-starter. No one in power will listen to you.

Good luck repealing the 16th Amendment.

The IRS might be reformed, but where will we get the money to pay for wars, domestic surveillance, corporate welfare and entitlements? you want to renege on the promises of the USG?

It ain't the 19th century. we can't rely on the customs house anymore.

[Winehole23]

god if Chris ain't all about a unicorn with rainbow ice cream farts

[Winehole23]

If is not illegal then why apologize?
Business have risks.
Welcome to America Winehole.DJT screwed em hard. Once upon a time, he'd be ruined because he ruined his rep.

Now we elect him president.

[Winehole23]

I think ending the Federal Banking System would alleviate the majority of the problems we have with corruption within the government.

Welfare needs reform and required drug testing.

I'm also for ending the income tax and overhauling the IRS.what does any of this have to do with socialism?

[Mikeanaro]

DJT screwed em hard. Once upon a time, he'd be ruined because he ruined his rep.

Now we elect him president.
Psss you make it sound like he is Bernie Madoff, who also was a democrat donor.

The Clintons prey on the weak The strong have for ages preyed on the weak, but the Clintons have mastered the art of disguised begging. Something horrible happens and help is desperately needed, but the scammers are always first to show up to reap the benefits of those in need. The Clintons do make it look good though. They walk through the streets surrounded by those that need assistance, take some great pictures, and then they raise tons of money.
That money is then spent on travel, salaries, fund-raising, overhead expenses, and various other things it takes to run a scam. In 2013 according to Charity Watchdog the Clinton Foundation raised over $140 million, but only gave $9 million of that in actual direct aid. That fact alone goes a long way toward showing the poor, minority, female, and middle class voters (https://us.blastingnews.com/opinion/2016/08/the-undecided-voter-has-a-decision-to-make-001049115.html) in the United States just how good they would have it with Hillary Clinton (https://us.blastingnews.com/news/tag/hillary-clinton/) in the oval office.

Thats not screwing people´s good intentions to help those in need.

[Winehole23]

I mean, if you were against socialism, you'd say, get rid of it, not, give em a test.

[Chris]

what does any of this have to do with socialism?


what do you think about corporate welfare and bailing out insolvent banks?

That was your question. Try to keep up.

[Winehole23]

talking about someone else. you can't help it, Mikeanaro

[Winehole23]

That was your question. Try to keep up.um, you never said what you think

[Winehole23]

you can attempt to respond or deflect Chris, everyone can read for himself.

[Mikeanaro]

talking about someone else. you can't help it, Mikeanaro (https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=44789)
You mean, the ¨clean¨ people you support? how is that out of the equation?
Do they ceased to exist in this world or something?

[Winehole23]

you have no idea who I support.

you can check my trend of posting. I dare you to find a single post supporting HRC.

[Winehole23]

for the record, I don't think anyone is clean.

[Winehole23]

also for the record, I think we have two pro-business parties screwing us over in oh-so-very slightly different ways.

I don't trust either one of them.

[Winehole23]

red or blue, we still end up with purple assholes

[ElNono]

Its not just the example, Dems have all media thats why Barrack was so great for them everything was perfect just like the Ks had 10 channels radios and papers here, Hilda got money from those countries that kills gays and lesbians just like the Kirchners had money from Chavez.
Chavez did the same with media.

Now media is all day bashing Trump like he is a criminal not one thing is right about him, and he is doing great with economy.
Macri is being bashed all day long, economy is not great but you see the blind hate everything sucks.
Maduro is not being bashed at all.

Open borders are great to get votes and then do whatever they like, just like Hilda was against little children crossing the border and now POOR BABIES!!!
Same Schumer and all those clowns.
Why they changed their minds so fast?

USA is full of corruption too, the FBI is a fine example.

That country needs to keep better and better with closed borders, and then decide if they want to go socialist.
But not in the middle of illegals, crazy forced racism, one sided fbi, wacko clowns like Jim Carrey and all that freak show Dems are doing.

If you want something clean and transparent first you must have a good foundation, thats not USA case right now.

The media narrative should be dead and buried at this point, with the fact that Trump is indeed the president, and Republicans haven't had more control of government in decades, tbh...

If media's mission was to boycott a certain party, they've been an abject failure at that. At this point, it's just a silly schtick to play the victim card.

The US foundation is fine. This is democracy, you get the swings and half the populous is happy, half is not. In that sense, democracy is working.

The rentier system is also alive and well, same with cut-throat capitalism. For a lot of the bitching we hear every day, the more the swamp changes, the more it stays the same.

[Winehole23]

yeah, what ElNono said

[ElNono]

The idea that you automatically like Shillary if you don't like Trump is a complete deceit, even logically. If you were to tell me 100% of the electorate voted and Trump won, you could argue that point.

But there was a major part of the electorate that didn't like either and didn't vote at all. That group can certainly dislike both, and there's nothing illogical about that.

[Mikeanaro]

I´ve seen your posts and all of them lean to the left, any objective/independent person would never try to forget HRC or pull her ¨Dont name her¨ card.
Also independents would never defend the establishment and people who has been 30 years doing nothing except getting richer.

You dont have to prove anything anyway, as long you are not an asshole like Chumplov Im cool.

[Winehole23]

if only the people who don't vote could find someone to vote for...is it weird to think the non-voters are the swing voters par excellence?

I mean, if they ever voted en masse?

[ElNono]

Back to the topic at hand, I can certainly understand if some people don't like certain type of extreme socialism (extremes are bad and certainly not exclusive to socialism. Communism is an extreme).

However, the notion it's somehow a bad word is downright ridiculous, considering the bastion of capitalism has had the necessity to use different small strokes of socialism over it's whole existence.

[Winehole23]

if there was ever someone who could make them care enough to vote?

[Winehole23]

Back to the topic at hand, I can certainly understand if some people don't like certain type of extreme socialism (extremes are bad and certainly not exclusive to socialism. Communism is an extreme).

However, the notion it's somehow a bad word is downright ridiculous, considering the bastion of capitalism has had the necessity to use different small strokes of socialism over it's whole existence.people pretend it's a novelty. it isn't.

for better and for worse...

[ElNono]

if there was ever someone who could make them care enough to vote?

Primaries, selection process, party politics... a whole 'nother can of worms

[Mikeanaro]

The media narrative should be dead and buried at this point, with the fact that Trump is indeed the president, and Republicans haven't had more control of government in decades, tbh...

If media's mission was to boycott a certain party, they've been an abject failure at that. At this point, it's just a silly schtick to play the victim card.

The US foundation is fine. This is democracy, you get the swings and half the populous is happy, half is not. In that sense, democracy is working.

The rentier system is also alive and well, same with cut-throat capitalism. For a lot of the bitching we hear every day, the more the swamp changes, the more it stays the same.
While I agree with most of this post, I dont remember society being so fucking sensitive like if somebody fingered their holes and that makes everything worse.
Fucking millennials and extreme left are borderline nazi, you cant have a different opinion, you cant.

Maybe in the old days there was no twitter FB Instafag, and now media uses those ammunitions to bust balls.

[Winehole23]

voter caging, Crosscheck, voter ID laws, gerrymandering... the pols pick the voters, not the other way around,.

[Winehole23]

While I agree with most of this post, I dont remember society being so fucking sensitive like if somebody fingered their holes and that makes everything worse.
Fucking millennials and extreme left are borderline nazi, you cant have a different opinion, you cant.

Maybe in the old days there was no twitter FB Instafag, and now media uses those ammunitions to bust balls.rotflmao

[Blake]

Mixed socialism since and ever since. Got it.

Next stop: communism!

Per Chris.

[hater]

Im ok with socialism tbqh

Tulsi/Ocassio 2020 :tu Im onthe wagon

[boutons_deux]

America has been deeply socialist and is even more so now that the oligarchy dominates.

taxes are "confiscated" from non-oligarchy to "pay for" tax cuts, subsidies, gifts for the oligarchy.

The oligarchy stole 4M homes in their Banksters Great Depression, no oligarch went to jail, but Ms went to landlords, to living in their cars, on the streets.

Blatant FORCED CONFISCATORY redistribution of wealth upwards.

[DMC]

Socialism is a range of both economic and social theories. You could create a form of government solely based on that, much like you could create a form of government based solely on capitalism.

In reality the world borrows from each where it makes sense, even if one of the systems is heavily favored over the other. They can both clearly coexist under democracies or any other form of government.

That's why demonizing the word socialism makes no sense. Almost every area of government that's either revenue neutral or a revenue loser runs some form of socialism, due to a higher mission (national security, social programs, law enforcement, etc).

But borrowing from it doesn't recreate it just as Jujitsu borrows from Judo but isn't Judo. If you were going on about how great Jujitsu is and said "we need to stop demonizing Judo", you'd be barking up the wrong tree. Judo is great but there's a reason Jujitsu is a prominent combat form while Judo is mostly for exhibition.

Socialism in its pure form simply doesn't work because it involves humans. Socialist aspects of governments work because they don't completely snuff out individual responsibility. We could go further and say that the right to fail and suffer because of it encourages growth while an eternal safety net of socialism leads to stagnation. Fear is a powerful motivator.

Pointing out elements of our government that rely on socialist principles to operate (bailing out big businesses, for example) doesn't lend any credence to the viability of socialism. It only says it's being used.

[DMC]

Don't take it personally, I was just pointing out that it's fairly common for Americans to see things through individualism, because that's what's ingrained in them.

The example you put together was actually a text-book case. From an individualist optic, if there's a pie for 10 people, adding an 11th person is a (personal) affront. That 11th person might be a cook that can make pies for everybody, but the first instinct is to think about it in terms of me and mine.

I'm not going to berate anybody for thinking in those terms, but that line of thinking is closer to dogma, and in that sense, it makes it more difficult to have an expansive view of the problems and solutions.
The other side of that coin is that there's 111 people and none of the new people can make anything because they are unskilled labor. Now you have no one eating because there's not enough food. Then a country with individualism as an ideal has its borders encroached upon and violated because no one wants to starve, when all the political and ideological dust settles.

[djohn2oo8]

We have come to the point where Chris is triggered by Jim Carrey

[Blake]

We have come to the point where Chris is triggered by Jim Carrey

:lol

[ElNono]

But borrowing from it doesn't recreate it just as Jujitsu borrows from Judo but isn't Judo. If you were going on about how great Jujitsu is and said "we need to stop demonizing Judo", you'd be barking up the wrong tree. Judo is great but there's a reason Jujitsu is a prominent combat form while Judo is mostly for exhibition.

Socialism in its pure form simply doesn't work because it involves humans. Socialist aspects of governments work because they don't completely snuff out individual responsibility. We could go further and say that the right to fail and suffer because of it encourages growth while an eternal safety net of socialism leads to stagnation. Fear is a powerful motivator.

Pointing out elements of our government that rely on socialist principles to operate (bailing out big businesses, for example) doesn't lend any credence to the viability of socialism. It only says it's being used.

It does, however, points that capitalism can’t stand on its own two feet and cover all our goals either. In that sense, turning the argument around works just as well. The ‘viability of capitalism’ as the lone guide to government fails on some (pretty important) areas. And that actually isn’t just fine, it makes complete sense. In the real world, complex problems require complex solutions, and normally more than just a single tool.

While it’s easy to point to Russia as a case of communist failure, it’s also just as easy to point to China as a country that has grown tremendously, and it’s not even a democracy. Ironically, China did it without allowing their people enjoy the spoils of that growth, until relatively recently.

I would tend to agree that capitalism should take precedence if it’s viable to a given context. However, there’s nothing evil or bad about a Socialism. It’s just one more tool in the toolbox, and applied to a given context is a perfectly viable solution.

[baseline bum]

Dems have all media

:lmao

far right Clear Channel controls radio
far right Sinclair controls a ton of local stations
far right Fox News is the #1 cable news network

[ElNono]

The other side of that coin is that there's 111 people and none of the new people can make anything because they are unskilled labor. Now you have no one eating because there's not enough food. Then a country with individualism as an ideal has its borders encroached upon and violated because no one wants to starve, when all the political and ideological dust settles.

The logical step for those 111 people is keep adding people until they can all build a community and all get fed (the non individualistic optic). Or get tired of waiting and flee somewhere else (individualistic). IMO, there’s no right or wrong, they’re decisions made every day by people from all walks of life.

[DMC]

It does, however, points that capitalism can’t stand on its own two feet and cover all our goals either. In that sense, turning the argument around works just as well. The ‘viability of capitalism’ as the lone guide to government fails on some (pretty important) areas. And that actually isn’t just fine, it makes complete sense. In the real world, complex problems require complex solutions, and normally more than just a single tool.

While it’s easy to point to Russia as a case of communist failure, it’s also just as easy to point to China as a country that has grown tremendously, and it’s not even a democracy. Ironically, China did it without allowing their people enjoy the spoils of that growth, until relatively recently.

I would tend to agree that capitalism should take precedence if it’s viable to a given context. However, there’s nothing evil or bad about a Socialism. It’s just one more tool in the toolbox, and applied to a given context is a perfectly viable solution.

I don't believe there can be such a thing as social ownership of anything. A fine example would be public beaches. You can say it's public, but it's managed by people who decide who can and who cannot use it. The rules that apply to the beaches including curfews and such are chosen by a council, mostly, and everyone else just has to obey them. This doesn't seem like something I own. It seems like something I can access. Large groups of people can have collective ownership but the larger the group the more diluted your actual ownership influence becomes, and without influence what good is ownership? You can be ruled right out of your own property.

[Fabbs]

I don't believe there can be such a thing as social ownership of anything. A fine example would be public beaches. You can say it's public, but it's managed by people who decide who can and who cannot use it. The rules that apply to the beaches including curfews and such are chosen by a council, mostly, and everyone else just has to obey them. This doesn't seem like something I own. It seems like something I can access. Large groups of people can have collective ownership but the larger the group the more diluted your actual ownership influence becomes, and without influence what good is ownership? You can be ruled right out of your own property.
What if I want to have pie on the beach?
What if the entire group wants to have pie?

[Blake]

I don't believe there can be such a thing as social ownership of anything. A fine example would be public beaches. You can say it's public, but it's managed by people who decide who can and who cannot use it. The rules that apply to the beaches including curfews and such are chosen by a council, mostly, and everyone else just has to obey them. This doesn't seem like something I own. It seems like something I can access. Large groups of people can have collective ownership but the larger the group the more diluted your actual ownership influence becomes, and without influence what good is ownership? You can be ruled right out of your own property.

No, those people can't decide as to who gets to use the public beach. They only can make rules as to when and how it is to be used based on the desires of the public as a whole.

The good thing for you not being the sole owner is that you don't have to pick up other people's beer cans

[DMC]

No, those people can't decide as to who gets to use the public beach. They only can make rules as to when and how it is to be used based on the desires of the public as a whole.

The good thing for you not being the sole owner is that you don't have to pick up other people's beer cans

"As a whole". There's no such entity.

[DMC]

What if I want to have pie on the beach?
What if the entire group wants to have pie?

I'm sure you have coupons.

[DMC]

The logical step for those 111 people is keep adding people until they can all build a community and all get fed (the non individualistic optic). Or get tired of waiting and flee somewhere else (individualistic). IMO, there’s no right or wrong, they’re decisions made every day by people from all walks of life.

But the 111 isn't an entity either. It's 111 individuals. Until they select a leader who tells everyone what to do, or they all vote on it (with the group in mind, no individual agendas) then you have chaos.

[Blake]

"As a whole". There's no such entity.

Sure there is. It's defined in law/ordinance/code etc.

[Blake]

But the 111 isn't an entity either. It's 111 individuals. Until they select a leader who tells everyone what to do, or they all vote on it (with the group in mind, no individual agendas) then you have chaos.

Now you're just bogging down on semantics.

Shooting par.

[DMC]

Now you're just bogging down on semantics.

Shooting par.

And you're a 3rd party observer - per par

[DMC]

Sure there is. It's defined in law/ordinance/code etc.

It's a concept.

[Blake]

And you're a 3rd party observer - per par

It's a public message board.

[Blake]

It's a concept.

It's a legal concept that's practiced.

[FrostKing]

Don't take it personally, I was just pointing out that it's fairly common for Americans to see things through individualism, because that's what's ingrained in them.

The example you put together was actually a text-book case. From an individualist optic, if there's a pie for 10 people, adding an 11th person is a (personal) affront. That 11th person might be a cook that can make pies for everybody, but the first instinct is to think about it in terms of me and mine.

I'm not going to berate anybody for thinking in those terms, but that line of thinking is closer to dogma, and in that sense, it makes it more difficult to have an expansive view of the problems and solutions.
Well yah, America is all about individualism. "Express yourself". I.e. doesn't matter where you came from, you can be anything you dream of here.

My parents California cul-de-sac: classic white American family, my Polish parents, Filipinos, Arabs and now black family moved in. Same diversity at my job. And at my gym.

We speak different languages, eat different foods and follow different cultural norms. Together we respect our mutual space from one another. Socialism would never work here.

[DMC]

It's a legal concept that's practiced.

A public entity is a governing body, not the public itself. A group doesn't make a decision. A person makes a decision and the group will either have a representative or they will take a vote. The vote total will decide the majority. It has been decided, but on an individual level. People don't flee for socialist reasons. They flee for personal reasons. Hunger is an individual issue that can be solved by a group. Even though each person has the same problem they don't share it.

Anthropomorphism might help individuals understand outcomes but it still doesn't make a group of people into a single entity.

[DMC]

It's a public message board.

Actually it's a privately owned message board.

[Blake]

Actually it's a privately owned message board.

That they opened to the public. That's why I'm talking to you, genius.

[DMC]

That they opened to the public. That's why I'm talking to you, genius.

Pithy edit

So the general public can come and go as they please without needing to register for membership?

[Blake]

A public entity is a governing body, not the public itself. A group doesn't make a decision. A person makes a decision and the group will either have a representative or they will take a vote. The vote total will decide the majority. It has been decided, but on an individual level. People don't flee for socialist reasons. They flee for personal reasons. Hunger is an individual issue that can be solved by a group. Even though each person has the same problem they don't share it.

Anthropomorphism might help individuals understand outcomes but it still doesn't make a group of people into a single entity.

Oh hey, a goal post move. No way!

[DMC]

Oh hey, a goal post move. No way!


It's a public message board.



That they opened to the public. That's why I'm talking to you, genius.

:lmao

[Blake]

Pithy edit

So the general public can come and go as they please without needing to register for membership?

Needing to register is irrelevant to it falling under the definition of public. There are no restrictions or member fees to enter here.

You questioned what "public as a whole" is and now you're all over the place.

[Blake]

:lmao

Oh hey, a nonsensical emoticon. No way!

[ElNono]

I don't believe there can be such a thing as social ownership of anything. A fine example would be public beaches. You can say it's public, but it's managed by people who decide who can and who cannot use it. The rules that apply to the beaches including curfews and such are chosen by a council, mostly, and everyone else just has to obey them. This doesn't seem like something I own. It seems like something I can access. Large groups of people can have collective ownership but the larger the group the more diluted your actual ownership influence becomes, and without influence what good is ownership? You can be ruled right out of your own property.

It’s done by proxy from government, who are elected by the people. It’s not really different than asking who owns the airplanes on the US Airforce.

But, I also think your argument makes sense under communism, not necessarily socialism. Under communism there’s a strict abolishment of property rights. It’s an extreme take on socialism. Socialism in itself is just the concept of government ownership, it doesn’t mandate it or precludes from using a mixed system

[ElNono]

But the 111 isn't an entity either. It's 111 individuals. Until they select a leader who tells everyone what to do, or they all vote on it (with the group in mind, no individual agendas) then you have chaos.

Well, the original concept was a pretty severe reduction of society. Except for rare cases, we’re well past that.

[Blake]

But, I also think your argument makes sense under communism, not necessarily socialism. Under communism there’s a strict abolishment of property rights. It’s an extreme take on socialism.

Also under HOA covenants.

[ElNono]

Under HOA you forego certain rights under contract, not forced by government. Plus, you still own property in that case. It’s a different situation.

[AaronY]

It is with a heavy heart that I must report that Chris is actually right about something..Socialism really does fucking blow tbh

[AaronY]

Also, Jim Carrey is a nutjob. How much of his wealth do you think he's spread around to the needy?
I cant stand far left bullshit but I never get this rightwing talking point..hes literally volunteering to be part of the rich group who is heavily taxed to pay for you and I's health care and other welfare programs. Never made sense to me this argument tbh

[Blake]

Under HOA you forego certain rights under contract, not forced by government. Plus, you still own property in that case. It’s a different situation.

True it's not 1980s Soviet Union in that you are free to leave the same way you were free not to move there to begin with.

But if you fail to pay membership dues you can say bye to the property you thought you owned.

[Isitjustme?]

:lmao

far right Clear Channel controls radio
far right Sinclair controls a ton of local stations
far right Fox News is the #1 cable news network

Hes talking about "mainstream" media not all the top rated things in all the media categories

Lol conservative victimhood complex

[boutons_deux]

MSM won't dare touch, expose their advertizers, so MSM is fully compromised by the oligarchy's $Bs in advertising.

[cd98]

Socialism is a range of both economic and social theories. You could create a form of government solely based on that, much like you could create a form of government based solely on capitalism.

In reality the world borrows from each where it makes sense, even if one of the systems is heavily favored over the other. They can both clearly coexist under democracies or any other form of government.

That's why demonizing the word socialism makes no sense. Almost every area of government that's either revenue neutral or a revenue loser runs some form of socialism, due to a higher mission (national security, social programs, law enforcement, etc).

It's true that every government borrows from both. In the U.S., though, socialism leads to more bureaucracy, less efficiency, higher costs, less options/decisions for consumers, and less accountability. Capitalism certainly has its issues and to some extent, government oversight is necessary. But socialism gets a bad name here because government involvement tends to screw things up. Capitalism does too, but to some extent, it's easier to remedy capitalistic screw ups. For example, if the government screws up, it's hard to pierce the bureaucracy and government has immunity that prevents a significant amount of lawsuits. So if you are having issues with your government insurance, your hands are tied. In our system, if a particular market is not satisfying customers, they can go else where or it opens the door for new competitors, or you have court systems that can pierce the corporate veil. It's certainly not foolproof, but a consumer has avenues.

The problem I have with people that are anti-capitalism, is that they act like capitalism is corrupt and socialism is pure and corruption free. Nothing could be more laughable. Being from Argentina (I believe), I think you can attest that the government is often corrupt. Hell, the US has plenty of corrupt politicians. There is plenty of government fraud in any sector of the economy that it takes over. Sure, you may get more freebies from the government that the middle class is paying for, but it will be inefficient and people in the bureaucracy can supplement what is traditionally lower salaries with fraud to pad their pockets. To be honest, corruption exists no matter what economic system is put in place because people are corrupt.

[boutons_deux]

"they act like capitalism is corrupt and socialism is pure and corruption free."

another straw man. humans operate both, so both are open to corruption, however, capitalism is fundamentally morally bankrupt, so it's a non-starter

[cd98]

"they act like capitalism is corrupt and socialism is pure and corruption free."

another straw man. humans operate both, so both are open to corruption, however, capitalism is fundamentally morally bankrupt, so it's a non-starter

Inherent in socialism is inefficiency and it is a breeding ground for corruption because its bureaucracy eventually leads to un-elected and therefore, unaccountable, people making decisions for you. I'm guessing you think capitalism is inherently bad because it succeeds because people seek their own self interest? And serving your own self interest is "morally bankrupt"?

[DAF86]

I always found it funny how Socialism is an automatic bad word for most Staters. :lol

[boutons_deux]

"Inherent in socialism is inefficiency and it is a breeding ground for corruption because its bureaucracy eventually leads to un-elected and therefore, unaccountable, people making decisions for you."

straw man

If the govt wants to take my money and provide govt day care, health care, elder care, k-12/college education, public transport, solid and maintained infrastructure, non-profit public banking, then I'm all for those bureaucratic "decisions made for me"

govt run by the the American Capitalist oligarchy is making decisions against me, so FUCK THAT SHIT and FUCK AMERICAN CAPITALISM.

Capitalism, eg in USA, is greed saying fuck everybody and fuck everything to satisfy my greed, while socialism is seeking The Common Good, For ALL The People.

[cd98]

"Inherent in socialism is inefficiency and it is a breeding ground for corruption because its bureaucracy eventually leads to un-elected and therefore, unaccountable, people making decisions for you."

straw man

If the govt wants to take my money and provide govt day care, health care, elder care, k-12/college education, public transport, solid and maintained infrastructure, then I'm all for those bureaucratic "decisions made for me"

govt run by the the American Capitalist oligarchy is making decisions against me, so FUCK THAT SHIT and FUCK AMERICAN CAPITALISM.

Capitalism, eg in USA, is greed saying fuck everybody and fuck everything to satisfy my greed, while socialism is seeking The Common Good, For ALL The People.




What? American Capitalists making decisions for you? What are you talking about. If you don't want an I-phone, you can buy a different kind of phone. They don't control your decision making.

Certainly capitalism can have some ugly effects if there is no oversight. No one wants to have banks run out of people's garage. But I also think there is a difference between greed and on seeking their own self interest.

Well it's certainly possible that you are not in the middle class, and taking advantage of handouts by the government doesn't concern you. But for those that pay a significant amount in taxes, we would be bothered if the government provided, say, free day care, but took double the amount of the actual cost from tax dollars to feed its bureaucracy. You may have no problem with that, but that doesn't make it any less corrupt.

[DAF86]

Capitalism: "You don't have money to pay medical expanses? Well, sorry for you."

Socialism: "You are sick? Here, we can help you."

Which one sounds better?

[cd98]

I always found it funny how Socialism is an automatic bad word for most Staters. :lol

We had that debate a long time ago, and capitalism mostly won out. Sure, there are elements of socialism in our economy, but outside of roads and defense, which inherently are better managed by a government rather than a free market, government control of any sector of the economy is scrutinized. South America has been way more liberal with adopting socialism, but admittedly, they have not been very successful economies, traditionally. A lot of that is corruption from the government, but I don't think you can separate socialism from the corruption, at least not in South America.

[Blake]

Capitalism: "You don't have money to pay medical expanses? Well, sorry for you."

Socialism: "You are sick? Here, we can help you."

Which one sounds better?

Depends who you talk to

[cd98]

Capitalism: "You don't have money to pay medical expanses? Well, sorry for you."

Socialism: "You are sick? Here, we can help you."

Which one sounds better?

But that isn't reality. Before Obamacare, people that didn't have insurance got free health care. Sometimes it was inferior health care, but it was health care none the less. And it wasn't inferior by world standards, just inferior to the type of care available here which has the most available advanced technology, which is very expensive.

[DAF86]

We had that debate a long time ago, and capitalism mostly won out. Sure, there are elements of socialism in our economy, but outside of roads and defense, which inherently are better managed by a government rather than a free market, government control of any sector of the economy is scrutinized. South America has been way more liberal with adopting socialism, but admittedly, they have not been very successful economies, traditionally. A lot of that is corruption from the government, but I don't think you can separate socialism from the corruption, at least not in South America.

There will be corruption on any system. But that's because of human nature, not because of a particular economic sytem.

The US is the richest, most powerful country in the World, yet it is one that has one of the largest differences between rich and poor people. If Argentina didn't have Socialist leaning policies in terms of health and education, more than half of the population wouldn't have access to them.

[cd98]

There will be corruption on any system. But that's because of human nature, not because of a particular economic sytem.

The US is the richest, most powerful country in the World, yet it is one that has one of the largest differences between rich and poor people. If Argentina didn't have Socialist leaning policies in terms of health and education, more than half of the population wouldn't have access to them.

I can't speak to whether or not socialism is good for South America. It's true that corruption exists in any form of economic system because of human nature. It's true that there is a large difference between rich and poor, but that doesn't mean that the poor here are destitute like they are in other parts of the world. For example, poverty in say, Paraguay, that I've seen is much lower than what the standard poor person in the US deals with unless they absolutely choose to live in those circumstances. The opportunity here for a higher lifestyle, even for a poor person, is significant.

[koriwhat]

that old washed up motherfucker just needs to go back to his socialist roots... canada! get the fuck out of our country you has been millionaire!

[Blake]

that old washed up motherfucker just needs to go back to his socialist roots... canada! get the fuck out of our country you has been millionaire!

No, he's actually doing something for society. You're not. You should leave instead.

[koriwhat]

No, he's actually doing something for society. You're not. You should leave instead.

he's not doing shit blake. stop being the cuck for all of the far left. you're fucking pathetic man.

carrey is just like the rest of the lot; he's deranged and has too much money/notoriety that he thinks he can tell all of society how to act. fuck celebs and those like you who fluff them endlessly.

btw, i'm american and carrey is just a fucking queer from canada. fuck him and you.

[ElNono]

It's true that every government borrows from both. In the U.S., though, socialism leads to more bureaucracy, less efficiency, higher costs, less options/decisions for consumers, and less accountability. Capitalism certainly has its issues and to some extent, government oversight is necessary. But socialism gets a bad name here because government involvement tends to screw things up. Capitalism does too, but to some extent, it's easier to remedy capitalistic screw ups. For example, if the government screws up, it's hard to pierce the bureaucracy and government has immunity that prevents a significant amount of lawsuits. So if you are having issues with your government insurance, your hands are tied. In our system, if a particular market is not satisfying customers, they can go else where or it opens the door for new competitors, or you have court systems that can pierce the corporate veil. It's certainly not foolproof, but a consumer has avenues.

The problem I have with people that are anti-capitalism, is that they act like capitalism is corrupt and socialism is pure and corruption free. Nothing could be more laughable. Being from Argentina (I believe), I think you can attest that the government is often corrupt. Hell, the US has plenty of corrupt politicians. There is plenty of government fraud in any sector of the economy that it takes over. Sure, you may get more freebies from the government that the middle class is paying for, but it will be inefficient and people in the bureaucracy can supplement what is traditionally lower salaries with fraud to pad their pockets. To be honest, corruption exists no matter what economic system is put in place because people are corrupt.

Good take. I would split the cases of bureaucracy and corruption.

The thing with government run programs (in the US anyways) is that they’re intrinsically money losers. There’s also the added factor of being taxpayer dollars on a society that’s ingrained to think about taxes as a personal penalty. So what you actually normally get is a large number of regulations and oversight that require additional paper pushers. That breeds bureaucracy on a system that’s already losing money. So you get the feeling that you describe.

That said, no sane capitalist company wants to lose money, nor they can afford to, so privatizing management in these kind of endeavors normally simply results in an added cost to the taxpayer (maybe not initially, but typically in the long run).

The case of corruption is simply inherent in any power structure and normally tied to excesses, it can happen on any domain where power is involved. That includes socialism, capitalism, communism, etc.

[ElNono]

Capitalism: "You don't have money to pay medical expanses? Well, sorry for you."

Socialism: "You are sick? Here, we can help you."

Which one sounds better?

The thing is, if you don’t have money you get socialized healthcare, in the US.

The US has a safety net, and it does because of the situation you describe. It figured out a while ago that capitalism wasn’t gonna solve that problem and there’s no shame in that.

[boutons_deux]

sooner or later, the oligarchy is gonna destroy the safety, and 10Ks of people, babies, diseased will die.

That's Capitalism by Capitalists.

[spurraider21]

Primaries, selection process, party politics... a whole 'nother can of worms
the winner-take-all system is a big baddy, rather than proportional distribution of electoral votes. thats what drives us towards a 2-party system. to a lesser degree, the first-past-the-post system (plurality needed, not majority) also renders third parties useless. in the UK for instance they often have to put together a coalition, which gives strength to third parties...

[DAF86]

The thing is, if you don’t have money you get socialized healthcare, in the US.

The US has a safety net, and it does because of the situation you describe. It figured out a while ago that capitalism wasn’t gonna solve that problem and there’s no shame in that.


But that isn't reality. Before Obamacare, people that didn't have insurance got free health care. Sometimes it was inferior health care, but it was health care none the less. And it wasn't inferior by world standards, just inferior to the type of care available here which has the most available advanced technology, which is very expensive.

I wasn't talking about the US in particular with that example. Just comparing the pure Capitalist ideology to the Socialist one.

To me it is clear that, in strictly theoretical terms, Socialism is a lot more human, solidary and heart driven than Capitalism. Then we can discuss about actually putting those ideas in practice, but in terms of pure theory where we would have a World where every person is equally good natured and hard working, Socialism would work better than Capitalism.

[Blake]

he's not doing shit blake. stop being the cuck for all of the far left. you're fucking pathetic man.

carrey is just like the rest of the lot; he's deranged and has too much money/notoriety that he thinks he can tell all of society how to act. fuck celebs and those like you who fluff them endlessly.

btw, i'm american and carrey is just a fucking queer from canada. fuck him and you.

He's doing more than you. And you're an admitted druggy.

You should leave.

[Blake]

sooner or later, the oligarchy is gonna destroy the safety, and 10Ks of people, babies, diseased will die.

That's Capitalism by Capitalists.

Eh. Rich people need poor people to do the menial work.

[FrostKing]

10k's? That is not many

[RandomGuy]

The notion that it's either capitalism or socialism is wrong. They can coexist depending on the context. And reasonable arguments can be made where capitalism works on certain areas, and socialism makes sense in others.

Exactly.

A nuanced understanding.

I haven't finished reading, but have little doubt that this post will be the target of some unhinged vacuous attack.

[RandomGuy]

Except for the fact that it always leads to communism. Collectivism in general is a pipedream and relies on 0% bad actors. It will never work.

(snicker)

Ok. Funny how there aren't any communist governments in western Europe.

[RandomGuy]

The problem isn't socialist ideals. The problem is that "socialism" is a form of government, and when you try to mix it with capitalism and other "isms" it isn't socialism. It's like saying Islam is peaceful if you don't follow the tenets closely. There's no reason to use terms like socialism or capitalism if your system isn't either of them, which it actually isn't if you actually adhere to the definition of each instead of trying to rewrite the english language to make a point.

Also, Jim Carrey is a nutjob. How much of his wealth do you think he's spread around to the needy?

Implied:

Jim Carey is wrong about socialism because he doesn't spread wealth "around to the needy".

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

ad hominem
You attacked your opponent's character or personal traits in an attempt to undermine their argument.

No matter how many times your failure of reasoning his pointed out to you, you keep doing it.

It's almost like you are an idiot or something.

You aren't wrong because you are an idiot. You are an idiot because you are wrong, and keep at stupid arguments, even after being shown conclusively that your arguments are shitty.

[RandomGuy]

We had that debate a long time ago, and capitalism mostly won out. Sure, there are elements of socialism in our economy, but outside of roads and defense, which inherently are better managed by a government rather than a free market, government control of any sector of the economy is scrutinized. South America has been way more liberal with adopting socialism, but admittedly, they have not been very successful economies, traditionally. A lot of that is corruption from the government, but I don't think you can separate socialism from the corruption, at least not in South America.

Depends on what you are talking about.

For things like health care, where the general assumptions that make free markets run efficiently break down, you really do need to socialize the insurance aspect. Insurance is, at its most pure essence, the socialization of risks anyway.

[cd98]

I wasn't talking about the US in particular with that example. Just comparing the pure Capitalist ideology to the Socialist one.

To me it is clear that, in strictly theoretical terms, Socialism is a lot more human, solidary and heart driven than Capitalism. Then we can discuss about actually putting those ideas in practice, but in terms of pure theory where we would have a World where every person is equally good natured and hard working, Socialism would work better than Capitalism.

Well I guess we are getting terms mixed up. In a capitalism system, it doesn't necessarily mean that a poor person that cannot afford health care will get none. Just like a socialist system doesn't guarantee that there will be enough resources to provide equal health care for everyone.

In a purely hypothetical capitalistic system, the market would provide a system that would address those with less income to pay for top notch health care. But it's true under that system, some of the best care would not be available. But socialism doesn't fix that problem either. You may technically have "universal" care, but it still must be rationed because their are finite resources. So just because you have universal care does not mean you will get the best care or at least you won't get the best care in time for it to help you. I don't think you answer the question when you assume that "socialism" fixes everyone's problems and capitalism only addresses the people that have the wealth.

[cd98]

Depends on what you are talking about.

For things like health care, where the general assumptions that make free markets run efficiently break down, you really do need to socialize the insurance aspect. Insurance is, at its most pure essence, the socialization of risks anyway.

Insurance to me is a hybrid. The bigger question was how much should the government regulate the insurance market and whether it should participate in the market. Obama just commented that it's time to talk about the government taking over health care with a single payer system. That would be complete socialization of health care.

[DMC]

I cant stand far left bullshit but I never get this rightwing talking point..hes literally volunteering to be part of the rich group who is heavily taxed to pay for you and I's health care and other welfare programs. Never made sense to me this argument tbh

Yeah he's a hero.

He's starting the argument. Therefore he's the one who's being a hypocrite. Those pointing it out aren't advocating either way, just pointing out that he's saying capitalism < socialism but the only reason he has a platform is because of capitalism.

[DMC]

Implied:

Jim Carey is wrong about socialism because he doesn't spread wealth "around to the needy".

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem


No matter how many times your failure of reasoning his pointed out to you, you keep doing it.

It's almost like you are an idiot or something.

You aren't wrong because you are an idiot. You are an idiot because you are wrong, and keep at stupid arguments, even after being shown conclusively that your arguments are shitty.
I didn't say or imply it. I just don't care to hear proselytizing from the wicked. There's something inherently flawed about it. It gets called out here quite often even by you.

Your reading comprehension is more corrupt than your moral high ground.

[cd98]

I'm pretty sure Jim Carey donates to charities and I'm sure he pays a hefty tax bill. But you also have to remember that Jim Carey probably has a great accountant and that Jim Carey is so wealthy that taxes do not impact his standard of living. The people squeezed by large tax bills are middle class people that vastly outnumber these millionaire socialists. Jim Carey gets a tax break and he doesn't care, but it does have an impact on the middle class. And raising the tax bill on the middle class has a big impact. That's where his legitimacy takes a hit. Until you suffer like the people that get the highest tax bill relative to their income, you can't speak for them.

[DMC]

I'm pretty sure Jim Carey donates to charities and I'm sure he pays a hefty tax bill. But you also have to remember that Jim Carey probably has a great accountant and that Jim Carey is so wealthy that taxes do not impact his standard of living. The people squeezed by large tax bills are middle class people that vastly outnumber these millionaire socialists. Jim Carey gets a tax break and he doesn't care, but it does have an impact on the middle class. And raising the tax bill on the middle class has a big impact. That's where his legitimacy takes a hit. Until you suffer like the people that get the highest tax bill relative to their income, you can't speak for them.

"Let them eat cake" is a good message, just misguided and wrong messenger. logkl falucy pls

[koriwhat]

He's doing more than you. And you're an admitted druggy.

You should leave.

lmao i'm no junkie. what do you call carrey then if not a druggy too? and he ain't doing shit so keep sucking him off you faggot.

poor little bitchass blake.

[Mikeanaro]

:lmao

far right Clear Channel controls radio
far right Sinclair controls a ton of local stations
far right Fox News is the #1 cable news network
Nobody is making people watch Fox News, they can choose NBC, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, or CNN and then TIME magazine, WAPO, LA TIMES Business Insider and all that garbage.
and this is not everything, they have Yahoo Facebook Google Twitter... to spread shit all over the world not just in the states, everyone uses yahoo and google and its a shitfest, just loaded Yoo Hoo and

Politics Yahoo View

We already have all of the information we need to impeach Trump (https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/already-information-impeach-trump-055528187.html)Also CNN has roots everywhere, just watch CNN latinoamerica spreading lies to latinos, they have ties with TN (the biggest news group here) and they parrot the same all the time.

So Dems have all media.

[Mikeanaro]

I'm pretty sure Jim Carey donates to charities and I'm sure he pays a hefty tax bill. But you also have to remember that Jim Carey probably has a great accountant and that Jim Carey is so wealthy that taxes do not impact his standard of living. The people squeezed by large tax bills are middle class people that vastly outnumber these millionaire socialists. Jim Carey gets a tax break and he doesn't care, but it does have an impact on the middle class. And raising the tax bill on the middle class has a big impact. That's where his legitimacy takes a hit. Until you suffer like the people that get the highest tax bill relative to their income, you can't speak for them.
Also I must remind you that Jim Carrey is a very down to earth person, Jim Carrey suffers from depression and that makes Jim Carrey to take pills, then Jim Carrey gave Jim Carrey´s ex pills and Jim Carrey´s ex died but there was no further information regarding Jim Carrey´s responsibility .

Its a safe bet to say Jim Carrey lives a fancy life and doesnt practice what Jim Carrey preaches.
So far Jim Carrey is not housing illegals, Jim Carrey is not sharing his wealth, Jim Carrey is not doing politics to help people, Jim Carrey is just speaking out of his ass like Jim Carrey´s Ace Ventura ¨pet detective¨

[Mikeanaro]

Capitalism: "You don't have money to pay medical expanses? Well, sorry for you."

Socialism: "You are sick? Here, we can help you."

Which one sounds better?
You are distorting things

Is everyone paying to have free health?, or just middle class and then you have millions of bums getting everything for free.

[Spurtacular]

You are distorting things

Is everyone paying to have free health?, or just middle class and then you have millions of bums getting everything for free.

Pretty much just the bums; and "free" is still laughable even then.

[Mikeanaro]

Pretty much just the bums; and "free" is still laughable even then.
Lol, well then I would love to hear their plans to get bums straight, and then create the socialist paradise that would make everything better.

[cd98]

Also I must remind you that Jim Carrey is a very down to earth person, Jim Carrey suffers from depression and that makes Jim Carrey to take pills, then Jim Carrey gave Jim Carrey´s ex pills and Jim Carrey´s ex died but there was no further information regarding Jim Carrey´s responsibility .

Its a safe bet to say Jim Carrey lives a fancy life and doesnt practice what Jim Carrey preaches.
So far Jim Carrey is not housing illegals, Jim Carrey is not sharing his wealth, Jim Carrey is not doing politics to help people, Jim Carrey is just speaking out of his ass like Jim Carrey´s Ace Ventura ¨pet detective¨

To be fair to Jim, though, he grew up in a family where his dad was an accountant that lost everything and they lived in a van for a time. He's known when things go bad, real bad. I'm sure that informs how he sees the world. Doesn't make his point of view "correct", but I do think he is sincere in thinking socialism is better for people.

[baseline bum]

Nobody is making people watch Fox News, they can choose NBC, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, or CNN and then TIME magazine, WAPO, LA TIMES Business Insider and all that garbage.
and this is not everything, they have Yahoo Facebook Google Twitter... to spread shit all over the world not just in the states, everyone uses yahoo and google and its a shitfest, just loaded Yoo Hoo and

Politics Yahoo View

We already have all of the information we need to impeach Trump (https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/already-information-impeach-trump-055528187.html)Also CNN has roots everywhere, just watch CNN latinoamerica spreading lies to latinos, they have ties with TN (the biggest news group here) and they parrot the same all the time.

So Dems have all media.

All the media even though I showed you a ton of straight Republican propaganda making up a huge part of the mass media. :lol

What a load of bullshit calling anyone who doesn't spout Hannity and Limbaugh conspiracy theories as some kind of left media. Why are Republicans such crybabies about respectable news organizations not peddling right wing conspiracy theories on Seth Rich, Obama's birth certificate, pedophile pizza rings, etc?

[Mikeanaro]

All the media even though I showed you a ton of straight Republican propaganda making up a huge part of the mass media. :lol

What a load of bullshit calling anyone who doesn't spout Hannity and Limbaugh conspiracy theories as some kind of left media. Why are Republicans such crybabies about respectable news organizations not peddling right wing conspiracy theories on Seth Rich, Obama's birth certificate, pedophile pizza rings, etc?
Dems are not respectables Russia, Impeach, Stormy, Racism, Latino hate, Rape, Bad Economy and International Deals, suing because they lost an election fair and square is pretty crybaby too, the whole Kavanaugh thing 1300 questions are they trying to match him with Jesus?

As I told you before, internet giants are aligned with dems and thats a lot more than radio, Yahoo Google Twitter and Facebook, what does Reps have? breitbart?

[Mikeanaro]

To be fair to Jim, though, he grew up in a family where his dad was an accountant that lost everything and they lived in a van for a time. He's known when things go bad, real bad. I'm sure that informs how he sees the world. Doesn't make his point of view "correct", but I do think he is sincere in thinking socialism is better for people.
Yeah I know his story they had to eat from the trash cans, he even made jokes about that like 30 years ago.
Then he made millions and never looked back to help those in need, Jim is a pretty sick guy because of that depression thing.

[DAF86]

Well I guess we are getting terms mixed up. In a capitalism system, it doesn't necessarily mean that a poor person that cannot afford health care will get none. Just like a socialist system doesn't guarantee that there will be enough resources to provide equal health care for everyone.

In a purely hypothetical capitalistic system, the market would provide a system that would address those with less income to pay for top notch health care. But it's true under that system, some of the best care would not be available. But socialism doesn't fix that problem either. You may technically have "universal" care, but it still must be rationed because their are finite resources. So just because you have universal care does not mean you will get the best care or at least you won't get the best care in time for it to help you. I don't think you answer the question when you assume that "socialism" fixes everyone's problems and capitalism only addresses the people that have the wealth.

In a perfect Socialist society, all the people would have access to the best medical system available. There would be no difference. In a perfect Capitalist society, those who have more, would have access to higher levels of medical care than the rest.

[DAF86]

You are distorting things

Is everyone paying to have free health?, or just middle class and then you have millions of bums getting everything for free.

We are talking about ideal scenarios for both systems. So Socialism wouldn't have "bums getting everything for free".

[DMC]

In a perfect Socialist society, all the people would have access to the best medical system available. There would be no difference. In a perfect Capitalist society, those who have more, would have access to higher levels of medical care than the rest.

In a perfect capitalist society no one would need medical care and there'd be no poor people because everyone would have creativity and ideas they could sell, and the eventuality of it equates to stratification of wealth/population.

It's odd that your Utopian socialist society has no normal people but the ideal capitalist society is full of them.

[Mikeanaro]

We are talking about ideal scenarios for both systems. So Socialism wouldn't have "bums getting everything for free".
But you must fix that first, so how?
In theory its very nice but, to not put you in this particular situation... how Jim Carrey could fix it so bums dont get everything for free?

[ElNono]

Theres no capitalist/socialist silver bullet, tbh. Both theories are flawed in certain areas, and that’s fine.

[boutons_deux]

Theres no capitalist/socialist silver bullet, tbh. Both theories are flawed in certain areas, and that’s fine.

both sides!

false equivalence

[baseline bum]

Dems are not respectables Russia, Impeach, Stormy, Racism, Latino hate, Rape, Bad Economy and International Deals, suing because they lost an election fair and square is pretty crybaby too, the whole Kavanaugh thing 1300 questions are they trying to match him with Jesus?

As I told you before, internet giants are aligned with dems and thats a lot more than radio, Yahoo Google Twitter and Facebook, what does Reps have? breitbart?

Yeah Facebook was great for Democrats in 2016. What a load of whining crap. And you're crying about Kavanaugh getting grilled? That's rich when the GOP decided presidents don't have the authority to nominate people to the Supreme Court and left the seat open for a year instead of giving Garland hearings and a vote. Whining about Twitter when they're the ones who deliver Trump's worst propaganda to the world. LOL crying about Google terminating Alex Jones' channel as if they owe him a platform to broadcast his retardation.

[ElNono]

both sides!

false equivalence

Much to your chagrin, there's no capitalism/socialism boogeyman. It might be that you prefer socialism, but that doesn't avoid the fact that in a number of contexts, capitalism works substantially better.

[ElNono]

Yeah Facebook was great for Democrats in 2016. What a load of whining crap. And you're crying about Kavanaugh getting grilled? That's rich when the GOP decided presidents don't have the authority to nominate people to the Supreme Court and left the seat open for a year instead of giving Garland hearings and a vote. Whining about Twitter when they're the ones who deliver Trump's worst propaganda to the world. LOL crying about Google terminating Alex Jones' channel as if they owe him a platform to broadcast his retardation.

yup, its become a giant crutch, a way to play the victim card, where there's none.

[boutons_deux]

Much to your chagrin, there's no capitalism/socialism boogeyman. It might be that you prefer socialism, but that doesn't avoid the fact that in a number of contexts, capitalism works substantially better.

REGULATED capitalism worked very well for USA, after FDR implemented some laws for Labor (and Capital screamed) in the '30s.

Then from '45 to '75, all boats got floated, GI bill for college and mortgages, although in 1960 the US poverty rate was still 30% and progressive wins of the '60s got it down to 16%, a huge win for govt intervention, as were Nixon's OSHA, DoE, EPA

But in the '70s, Capital said fuck this shit, we're with Lewis Powell and we Capitalists are gonna screw Labor, take OUR country back.

The oligarchy, the deregulated / neoliberal Capitalists, got the policies, laws, regs that really did fuck Labor, and here we are.

The non-oligarchy is blocked, fleeced, defenseless since the govt defenses For The People have been destroyed, so the non-oligarchy is fucked.

[Mikeanaro]

Yeah Facebook was great for Democrats in 2016. What a load of whining crap. And you're crying about Kavanaugh getting grilled? That's rich when the GOP decided presidents don't have the authority to nominate people to the Supreme Court and left the seat open for a year instead of giving Garland hearings and a vote. Whining about Twitter when they're the ones who deliver Trump's worst propaganda to the world. LOL crying about Google terminating Alex Jones' channel as if they owe him a platform to broadcast his retardation.
It was great except people gave 2 shits about MSM, or you claim those 13 russians flooded the place with Trump ads and because of that he won the election...
What could be good about a Supreme Court full of libtards? a 24/7 Open Border store?
Corey Booker is like a retarded David Liebe Hart, what a patriot.

Twitter is filtering information hiding reps voices which is a form of fascism, I really dont care about Alex Jones but according to the great liberal voices everyone has a right to be heard... as long it fits their agenda LOL.

MSM has its dirty hands even in videogames places, and they are pushing their agenda to brainwash young idiots with that liberal nazi crap, Kotaku Jezebel Av Club etc, all those places belongs to UNIVISION so you cant even watch something about a fucking game without having to swallow that shitty regime.

So yeah, they are everywhere which was my initial point.

[Mikeanaro]

yup, its become a giant crutch, a way to play the victim card, where there's none.
The victims were all those libtard losers seeing 92.8% chances to win the election because their media was ¨reputable¨ according to baseline.

[Blake]

lmao i'm no junkie. what do you call carrey then if not a druggy too? and he ain't doing shit so keep sucking him off you faggot.

poor little bitchass blake.

If he does drugs then he is still a druggy that does more here than you do.

You should leave.

[DMC]

It was great except people gave 2 shits about MSM, or you claim those 13 russians flooded the place with Trump ads and because of that he won the election...
What could be good about a Supreme Court full of libtards? a 24/7 Open Border store?
Corey Booker is like a retarded David Liebe Hart, what a patriot.

Twitter is filtering information hiding reps voices which is a form of fascism, I really dont care about Alex Jones but according to the great liberal voices everyone has a right to be heard... as long it fits their agenda LOL.

MSM has its dirty hands even in videogames places, and they are pushing their agenda to brainwash young idiots with that liberal nazi crap, Kotaku Jezebel Av Club etc, all those places belongs to UNIVISION so you cant even watch something about a fucking game without having to swallow that shitty regime.

So yeah, they are everywhere which was my initial point.

The liberal trend is anything but freedom of speech. It's freedom of speech they agree with. If they don't agree with it, they think rioting and burning shit to stop a speech is their freedom of speech.

I've always said the 1st Amendment will be infringed upon far greater and earlier than the 2nd. Too bad there's no "National Free Speech Association" to strong arm congress into passing or voting down legislation regarding freedom of speech issues. Maybe if there was something as powerful as the NRA for the 1st Amendment, people would have to actually abide by the 1st.

[baseline bum]

It was great except people gave 2 shits about MSM, or you claim those 13 russians flooded the place with Trump ads and because of that he won the election...
What could be good about a Supreme Court full of libtards? a 24/7 Open Border store?
Corey Booker is like a retarded David Liebe Hart, what a patriot.

Twitter is filtering information hiding reps voices which is a form of fascism, I really dont care about Alex Jones but according to the great liberal voices everyone has a right to be heard... as long it fits their agenda LOL.

MSM has its dirty hands even in videogames places, and they are pushing their agenda to brainwash young idiots with that liberal nazi crap, Kotaku Jezebel Av Club etc, all those places belongs to UNIVISION so you cant even watch something about a fucking game without having to swallow that shitty regime.

So yeah, they are everywhere which was my initial point.

Your boy thinks Nazis are very fine people. LMAO at a Trumptard talking about Nazis. :lmao

[Mikeanaro]

The liberal trend is anything but freedom of speech. It's freedom of speech they agree with. If they don't agree with it, they think rioting and burning shit to stop a speech is their freedom of speech.

I've always said the 1st Amendment will be infringed upon far greater and earlier than the 2nd. Too bad there's no "National Free Speech Association" to strong arm congress into passing or voting down legislation regarding freedom of speech issues. Maybe if there was something as powerful as the NRA for the 1st Amendment, people would have to actually abide by the 1st.
Well said, they are hysterical... like dude I dont think like that, then you are a retard, a racist, a bigot blah blah blah.

They dont even want to accept they are fucking freedom of speech, because Trump won every non liberal user deserves to get blocked on Twitter FB, etc.
So who is the bigot?

MSM has a big role in this mess playing the ¨4th power¨shit.
At the end they will lose, most people hate self entitled clowns and I blame their parents for such stupid behaviors.

[DMC]

I don't listen to Alex Jones, wouldn't care if he never broadcast another word. I don't care about private media outlets censoring whomever they want. Free market capitalism should correct that if it needs it. I just sit back and laugh at the houses burning from the matches they lit. It's their houses!

[Mikeanaro]

Your boy thinks Nazis are very fine people. LMAO at a Trumptard talking about Nazis. :lmao
Choose a side first please, Nazis dont have Jews as sons-in-law, Nazis dont recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.
He never said that, he said
that were very fine people, on both sides.

At this point you crossed the line, distorting quotes... can you add that famous ALL MEXICANS ARE DRUG DEALERS & RAPISTS!?
Also calling me a Trumptard when I have never insulted you.

Grow a pair.

[baseline bum]

Choose a side first please, Nazis dont have Jews as sons-in-law, Nazis dont recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.
He never said that, he said
that were very fine people, on both sides.

At this point you crossed the line, distorting quotes... can you add that famous ALL MEXICANS ARE DRUG DEALERS & RAPISTS!?
Also calling me a Trumptard when I have never insulted you.

Grow a pair.

Holy fuck Trumptards whining about Nazis and obstruction of supreme court nominations is the funniest shit ever.

Nazis being very fine people :lmao

[Mikeanaro]

Holy fuck Trumptards whining about Nazis and obstruction of supreme court nominations is the funniest shit ever.

Nazis being very fine people :lmao
Your kind are the ones calling him a Nazi and obstructing everything.
Then you wonder why Hilda lost.

[baseline bum]

Your kind are the ones calling him a Nazi and obstructing everything.
Then you wonder why Hilda lost.

Trumptards whining about obstruction like 2009-2016 never happened. :lmao

You fuckers are the ones who invented obstructionism.

[Mikeanaro]

Trumptards whining about obstruction like 2009-2016 never happened. :lmao

You fuckers are the ones who invented obstructionism.
Lol, who invented KKK and supported slavery???

[baseline bum]

Lol, who invented KKK and supported slavery???

The south

[Mikeanaro]

The south
Democrats, nice try.

[baseline bum]

Democrats, nice try.

And now racist dixiecrat areas are firmly GOP turf.

[Mikeanaro]

And now racist dixiecrat areas are firmly GOP turf.
I had head and shoulders a few days ago, now I use Pantene, are you saying GOP created KKK and not Dems because there are not there anymore?
Apple doesnt fall far from the tree
https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/194/998/f38.jpg

[baseline bum]

I had head and shoulders a few days ago, now I use Pantene, are you saying GOP created KKK and not Dems because there are not there anymore?
Apple doesnt fall far from the tree
https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/194/998/f38.jpg

LOL copying Dinesh D'Souza's tired schtick. Yeah you guys are still the party of Lincoln. :lol

[Mikeanaro]

LOL copying Dinesh D'Souza's tired schtick. Yeah you guys are still the party of Lincoln. :lol
And shit will be shit now and forever, got a problem dealing with reality?

[baseline bum]

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-_hDGEF2Plzc/Tya4QiV0Q6I/AAAAAAAAAVY/4TcmwhXlack/s320/pot-kettle-black.jpg

[Mikeanaro]

It doesnt work like that, how?
Dems have no propositions, no faces, only whine because they lost.
In this case the pot is white/yellow/red.

[ElNono]

The liberal trend is anything but freedom of speech. It's freedom of speech they agree with. If they don't agree with it, they think rioting and burning shit to stop a speech is their freedom of speech.

I've always said the 1st Amendment will be infringed upon far greater and earlier than the 2nd. Too bad there's no "National Free Speech Association" to strong arm congress into passing or voting down legislation regarding freedom of speech issues. Maybe if there was something as powerful as the NRA for the 1st Amendment, people would have to actually abide by the 1st.

There always has been social shunning on certain speech (which is what politically correctness amounts to), and hasn't been exclusive to liberalism. Just like now we (we = the social norms du jour) celebrate the freedom to talk about sex, drugs, fucks, shit-shows and cunts, we also have moved to socially shun speech related to racism, denigration of women, etc. If you go back 100 years, then it was the exact opposite. The shunning was known as taboo back then, and the other stuff was the 'normal'. But it was always there, and always pervasive. Not to mention that back then you also had the added failed attempts to actually legislate morality.

Now, the first amendment doesn't really impede any of that speech, except for very specific cases, and IMO, the fact that, unlike Europe, we haven't adopted 'hate' speech laws (which is a double-edged sword, IMO), is a plus.

But the argument can also be made that we've socially evolved, looked back, had introspection about what was right and wrong, important or not important, and that's how we arrived to the current norms. Obviously, just like anything that's temporal in nature, it's debatable.

[ElNono]

Lol, who invented KKK and supported slavery???

Sorry Mike, buy this is a very ignorant take. While it's true that such base was part of the Democratic party back then, the party bases have shifted allegiances long time ago. Thus the South being a solid Republican bastion in this day and age.

Much like any political party that has been around long enough, both Republicans and Democrats have reinvented themselves and what they stand for, and thus, allegiances has shifted over time. It's only natural for political survival.

[Mikeanaro]

Sorry Mike, buy this is a very ignorant take. While it's true that such base was part of the Democratic party back then, the party bases have shifted allegiances long time ago. Thus the South being a solid Republican bastion in this day and age.

Much like any political party that has been around long enough, both Republicans and Democrats have reinvented themselves and what they stand for, and thus, allegiances has shifted over time. It's only natural for political survival.
It was how it started and they supported slavery so where is the bullshit?, thats a fact and thats why Byrd was mentoring Hilda and not W Bush.
Trump won Florida after Obama did it twice in ´08 and ´12.

So now according to your jokes now Florida likes to get grabbed by the old pussy?
Its natural for political survival to be against illegals and even children crossing the border and then suddenly in less than 2 years do a U turn?
Thats suicidal more than survival.

[ElNono]

Florida has been a swing state for a minute now but that’s one of the very few outliers. From the States that seceded in the Civil War, about 80% of them are today solid Republican. And anybody that’s been around those places known racism is generally alive and well (although debatable if it’s still a majority).

Point being, it’s just plan disingenuous to pretend that the current incarnation of the Democratic Party stood for what that old version did. Same applies to Republicans.

Not to mention that’s not how it all started either. Back then you also had the Wighs being somewhat of a political force too, that eventually disintegrated, but both Republicans and Democrats grabbed bits and pieces and added to their platforms.

[AaronY]

Yeah he's a hero.

He's starting the argument. Therefore he's the one who's being a hypocrite. Those pointing it out aren't advocating either way, just pointing out that he's saying capitalism < socialism but the only reason he has a platform is because of capitalism.
Yeah, thats what I said "he's a hero" direct quote

Point is you cant claim he is not willing to give money if he's campaigning to get his own taxes raised.

[boutons_deux]

the racist Confederate states were Dems to counter the war-winning Repug "party of Lincoln" up north.

Nixon/Atwater/Ailes' Southern Strategy recruited the slave state racists to the Repug party in reaction to the legal advances of their dearly beloved slave descendants in the '50s and '60s.

Repugs are the party of racism, xenophobia, ethnic cleansing.

[DAF86]

In a perfect capitalist society no one would need medical care and there'd be no poor people because everyone would have creativity and ideas they could sell, and the eventuality of it equates to stratification of wealth/population.

It's odd that your Utopian socialist society has no normal people but the ideal capitalist society is full of them.

In a perfect Capitalist society there will still always be people who are more talented and creative than others, and those would accomulate most of the capital, no matter how creative and talented the rest is. The capitalist system is based on inequality. On a reduced number of people who control the capital, and the rest, who work for them.

[DAF86]

But you must fix that first, so how?
In theory its very nice but, to not put you in this particular situation... how Jim Carrey could fix it so bums dont get everything for free?

It doesn't matter. I just wanted to point out that as an abstract idea, Socialism is more desirable than Capitalism. In reality, neither system works well on it's own.

[spurraider21]

Sorry Mike, buy this is a very ignorant take. While it's true that such base was part of the Democratic party back then, the party bases have shifted allegiances long time ago. Thus the South being a solid Republican bastion in this day and age.

Much like any political party that has been around long enough, both Republicans and Democrats have reinvented themselves and what they stand for, and thus, allegiances has shifted over time. It's only natural for political survival.
nah i just think the entire south had a massive political shift overnight. they decided to change the way they looked at race, taxes, education, healthcare, foreign policy, etc

[boutons_deux]

nah i just think the entire south had a massive political shift overnight. they decided to change the way they looked at race, taxes, education, healthcare, foreign policy, etc

sarcasm?

50s and 60s saw huge PROGRESSIVE LEGAL advances for blacks, REALLY pissed off the slave state DEM racists.

Nixon/Atwater/Ailes/Stone depraved brilliance was to use the racists' anger to recruit them to Repug party, where they have been ever since.

Even LBJ, in his own political brilliance, said something like "if I sign this (civil rights, voting rights, war on poverty, whatever) law, we've lost the South for a generation"

"taxes, education, healthcare, foreign policy, etc" totally secondary to racism back then, and also today.

Trash was elected on a racist, xenophobic strategy, which research was even more important than his economic and "swamp" lies

[spurraider21]

sarcasm?

50s and 60s saw huge PROGRESSIVE LEGAL advances for blacks, REALLY pissed off the slave state DEM racists.

Nixon/Atwater/Ailes brilliance was to use the racists' anger to recruit them to Repug party, where they have been ever since.

Even LBJ, in his own political brilliance, said something like "if I sign this (civil rights, voting rights, war on poverty, whatever) law, we've lost the South for a generation"

"taxes, education, healthcare, foreign policy, etc" totally secondary to racism back then, and also today.

Trash was elected on a racist, xenophobic strategy, which research was even more important than his economic and "swamp" lies
you think?

[Blake]

The liberal trend is anything but freedom of speech. It's freedom of speech they agree with. If they don't agree with it, they think rioting and burning shit to stop a speech is their freedom of speech.

I've always said the 1st Amendment will be infringed upon far greater and earlier than the 2nd. Too bad there's no "National Free Speech Association" to strong arm congress into passing or voting down legislation regarding freedom of speech issues. Maybe if there was something as powerful as the NRA for the 1st Amendment, people would have to actually abide by the 1st.

Lol "liberal trend"

Trump shits on the 1st amendment almost on the daily

[cd98]

Holy fuck Trumptards whining about Nazis and obstruction of supreme court nominations is the funniest shit ever.

Nazis being very fine people :lmao

I've always found it amusing how many people on the left hate Trump. You do realize that the dude is a Democrat for the most part. If your goal is to move to a more socialized country, Trump is your man. The old Republican orthodox was smaller government because it's inefficient, but Trump is all about governmental power grabs and centralized power. He's for expanding the deficit for lefty goodies (if that's what he thinks people want). I think he'd just about give the farm on immigration if the Dems would just accept his wall demand (which they should do and then just not fund it in the future). The only thing the guy does that is anything resembling the Republican party of years ago is nominate conservative justices. And even that is overrated. It's true that the left has used the court system to get around the legislative branch on social issues, but I actually think that has been mostly unnecessary as public opinion continues to liberalize at least to the point where the Supreme Court decisions aren't so groundbreaking and are quickly accepted and forgotten (and even with a "conservative" court, the left has won on most of the controversial cases). Plus, those type of cases make up like 2% of the Supreme Court's docket.

[Blake]

I've always found it amusing how many people on the left hate Trump. You do realize that the dude is a Democrat for the most part. If your goal is to move to a more socialized country, Trump is your man. The old Republican orthodox was smaller government because it's inefficient, but Trump is all about governmental power grabs and centralized power. He's for expanding the deficit for lefty goodies (if that's what he thinks people want). I think he'd just about give the farm on immigration if the Dems would just accept his wall demand (which they should do and then just not fund it in the future). The only thing the guy does that is anything resembling the Republican party of years ago is nominate conservative justices. And even that is overrated. It's true that the left has used the court system to get around the legislative branch on social issues, but I actually think that has been mostly unnecessary as public opinion continues to liberalize at least to the point where the Supreme Court decisions aren't so groundbreaking and are quickly accepted and forgotten (and even with a "conservative" court, the left has won on most of the controversial cases). Plus, those type of cases make up like 2% of the Supreme Court's docket.

What a terrible post.

Most hate Trump because among other things, he's a terrible policy maker, has no clue what he's doing and is in general just a plain inhuman ass hole.

Trump shouldn't be anyone's "man"

[Winehole23]

I disagree that SCOTUS nominations are overrated.

The judicial branch has the last say on what the law is. Its justices are the only folks in government with life-tenure.

It's the main reason the GOP protects Donald Trump.

[cd98]

What a terrible post.

Most hate Trump because among other things, he's a terrible policy maker, has no clue what he's doing and is in general just a plain inhuman ass hole.

Trump shouldn't be anyone's "man"

It's not so terrible. He takes ideology from the left and makes it mainstream. Sure he is wacko and un-Presidential, but he's doing your job. When he normalizes centralized power, he's doing what you want. And what policy-making is he even doing? Judging by what the NYT reported, what little that is happening is being done by staff without his knowledge.

[baseline bum]

I've always found it amusing how many people on the left hate Trump. You do realize that the dude is a Democrat for the most part. If your goal is to move to a more socialized country, Trump is your man. The old Republican orthodox was smaller government because it's inefficient, but Trump is all about governmental power grabs and centralized power. He's for expanding the deficit for lefty goodies (if that's what he thinks people want). I think he'd just about give the farm on immigration if the Dems would just accept his wall demand (which they should do and then just not fund it in the future). The only thing the guy does that is anything resembling the Republican party of years ago is nominate conservative justices. And even that is overrated. It's true that the left has used the court system to get around the legislative branch on social issues, but I actually think that has been mostly unnecessary as public opinion continues to liberalize at least to the point where the Supreme Court decisions aren't so groundbreaking and are quickly accepted and forgotten (and even with a "conservative" court, the left has won on most of the controversial cases). Plus, those type of cases make up like 2% of the Supreme Court's docket.

This is one of the most retarded posts I have ever seen on this forum. Congrats. The guy is the GOP's useful idiot for taking over the legislature, for tax cuts on the rich, and for more wasted money on our national offense. Calling him a Democrat when he has governed from the hard right. :lol Calling executive power grabs a Democrat thing after the Bush/Cheney years? :lmao

[DMC]

Yeah, thats what I said "he's a hero" direct quote

Point is you cant claim he is not willing to give money if he's campaigning to get his own taxes raised.

"People like me should give more money"

"Why don't you?"

"It's not mandatory"

[DMC]

Lol "liberal trend"

Trump shits on the 1st amendment almost on the daily

You should riot.

[DMC]

In a perfect Capitalist society there will still always be people who are more talented and creative than others, and those would accomulate most of the capital, no matter how creative and talented the rest is. The capitalist system is based on inequality. On a reduced number of people who control the capital, and the rest, who work for them.

You're misusing the term "perfect".

[DAF86]

You're misusing the term "perfect".

So, in a perfect Capitalist World, everybody would be boss and there would be no employees? :lol

[cd98]

This is one of the most retarded posts I have ever seen on this forum. Congrats. The guy is the GOP's useful idiot for taking over the legislature, for tax cuts on the rich, and for more wasted money on our national offense. Calling him a Democrat when he has governed from the hard right. :lol Calling executive power grabs a Democrat thing after the Bush/Cheney years? :lmao

Retarded? That's not very woke of you. Ask Ben Sasse if Trump is a conservative Republican. The only thing he's passed is tax cuts. That's it. And wasteful spending? That's a key cog of the Democrat party.

[DMC]

So, in a perfect Capitalist World, everybody would be boss and there would be no employees? :lol

No. In a perfect capitalist world, everyone would have a good or service they could sell for the same amount as everyone else sells their good or service, and that good or service would enable them to live just as well as anyone else. In a socialist, communist world, the goods and services of some are subpar, unwanted, but we are forced to buy them through collective payment/proxy so that everyone lives as if they have a viable good or service, even the bums.

[DAF86]

No. In a perfect capitalist world, everyone would have a good or service they could sell for the same amount as everyone else sells their good or service, and that good or service would enable them to live just as well as anyone else. In a socialist, communist world, the goods and services of some are subpar, unwanted, but we are forced to buy them through collective payment/proxy so that everyone lives as if they have a viable good or service, even the bums.

In a Capitalist World that "as well as" doesn't exist. Capitalism promotes individualism and competence. Socialism promotes team work, solidarity and equality.

[Blake]

You should riot.

Unless it affects me directly, probably not. I'll just continue to smhlol.