Reply With Quote
RIght now the most startling thing I can think of is that now the insurance companies are getting bailed out...wanna talk about bottomfeeders...
It's like CBF has been saying. The pendulum is swinging so far to the left only because it was thrown so far to the right.
RIght now the most startling thing I can think of is that now the insurance companies are getting bailed out...wanna talk about bottomfeeders...
Eh, not really. The Brian Jonestown Massacre is really the only band for me. God I love those mother ers:
The most surprising thing is that whottt decided to vote for McCain after much agonizing.
More seriously, it's been Extra Stout's turn to the left (well, at least the center). I've always depended on ES to get a sensible conservative view, now what do I do? I'm starting to feel that I'm right of the Spurstalk center.
My most startling isn't any poster - stay here long enough and you'll have seen it all, although Angle luv's revelation about believing Obama is the anti-christ breaks new ground in the 'I beleive' threshold.....my most startling is how so many people have seem to forgotten the most important lessons of the 00 and 04 general elections - wide spread e-voter fraud with vote switching, massive disenfranchisements in swing states, , even pulling out the state troopers in Florida to intimidate minorities on their way to the polls, and using the guise of 'national security' to close a very important polling place in Ohio in 04 for reasons that have never really been fully explained - Democrats and lose 'leaning left' need to remember those lessons and don't take for granted that anything is won until all the votes are counted and FAUX News has been forced to declare Obama the winner and the next President of the United States.....until then, anything can happen and that scares the out of me - especially because the future of so many powerful people and their 'legacy' or very freedom may lay on the balance of this election....
"The most surprising thing is that whottt decided to vote for McCain after much agonizing."
shocking!!
You think I was talking about the nature of your arguments with me?
Denial indeed
I haven't been on this forum long enough to decide if you're this lacking in self-awareness or if you're just trolling and playing a character.
Sometimes I feel like you're Andy Kaufman and we're just a bunch of gullible wrestling fans. I have a hard time accepting that you're for real.
Ya'll are hive...
Nobody knows what you're talking about anymore. You're as hard to parse as Sarah Palin.You think I was talking about the nature of your arguments with me?
Denial indeed
Well, there's certainly no doubt you're 'different'...
I grew up in the internet age. Nothing startles me!
I know...the inability of you guys to comprehend simple statements is probably more annoying to me than it is to you...
Nontheless, that's your limit...not mine. I very seldom have that problem with anyone.
Regardless of how difficult she may be to parse...she's very easy to understand.You're as hard to parse as Sarah Palin.
You scared me there for a second with the cool jazz joke. Whew.
I saw BJM last year at a small club in Tucson and it was a really good show, but there were three or four guys in the audience who kept yelling out things in between songs, trying to bait the singer, who's temper is as legendary as McCain's!
After the show, I went to an afterhours party and half the band showed up, and unfortunately behaved like annoying L.A. hipsters.
Yeah, ever since Dig! people want to bait Anton. And given how rarely he plays in the US anymore, there's a good chance he'll either put on a great show or show up drunk and quit playing after 3 songs.
This is what Tully is talking about, for anybody who cares:
Yeah. Those damn hate filled liberals. Like Bachmann, the congressman who called right-wingers "anti-American". Or the VP of the Democratic party, calling out "Real America" and implying that the other side isn't patriotic.
Man, all this hate is working me up! I guess I'll listen to some calm words from Rush Limbaugh.
You know, as opposed to hardcore jazz.
DPG ragging on Manu for saying he wasn't a believer, making a case he should be more PC, and then denying it all.
Palin surpised me and continues to surprise me.
I hadnt realized so many Americans are as easily taken as that. Supporting McCain, I understand. Supporting Obama, I understand.
Supporting Palin is and wil always be a mystery I will never solve. Hopefully, I'll never have to.
it's a loyalty thing. She's connected to McCain now and if she goes down...so does he...and by default the party...
That I actually voted for Obama.
That the best candidates this country could produce are two left-of-center, borderline socialist candidates.
That the Republican candidate who claims to be a cost-cutter offered to buy all the bad mortgages.
As always- politics makes strange bedfellows.
You don't even ing know what socialism is you dumb .
Economically, socialism denotes an economic system of state ownership and / or worker ownership of the means of production and distribution. In the U.S.S.R., state ownership of the means of production was combined with central planning – what goods and services to make and provide, how they were to be produced, the quan ies, and the sale prices (cf. Economy of the Soviet Union). Soviet economic planning was an alternative to allowing the market (supply and demand) to determine prices and production. During the Great Depression, socialists considered Soviet-style planned economies the remedy to Capitalism's inherent flaws – monopoly, business cycles, unemployment, unequally distributed wealth, and the economic exploitation of workers.
In the West, neoclassical liberal economists, e.g. Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman, said that socialist planned economies would fail, because planners could not have the business information inherent to a market economy (cf. economic calculation problem), nor would managers in Soviet-style socialist economies match the motivation of profit.
Consequent to Soviet economic stagnation in the 1970s and 1980s, socialists began to accept parts of their critique. Polish economist Oskar Lange, an early proponent of "market socialism", proposed a Central Planning Board establishing prices and controls of investment. The prices of producer goods would be determined through trial and error. The prices of consumer goods would be determined by supply and demand, with the supply coming from state-owned firms that would set their prices equal to the marginal cost, as in perfectly compe ive markets. The Central Planning Board would distribute a "social dividend" to ensure reasonable income equality.[53]
In Western Europe, particularly in the period after World War II, many socialist parties in government implemented what became known as mixed economies.[54] These governments nationalised major and economically vital industries while permitting a free market to continue in the rest. These were most often monopolistic or infrastructural industries like mail, railways, power and other utilities. In some instances a number of small, competing and often relatively poorly financed companies in the same sector were nationalised to form one government monopoly for the purpose of competent management, of economic rescue (in the UK, British Leyland, Rolls Royce), or of competing on the world market.[55] Typically, this was achieved through compulsory purchase of the industry (i.e. with compensation). For example in the UK the nationalization of the coal mines in 1947 created a coal board charged with running the coal industry commercially so as to be able to meet the interest payable on the bonds which the former mine owners' shares had been converted into.[56][57]
Some socialists propose various decentralized, worker-managed economic systems. One such system is the "cooperative economy," a largely free market economy in which workers manage the firms and democratically determine remuneration levels and labor divisions. Productive resources would be legally owned by the cooperative and rented to the workers, who would enjoy usufruct rights.[58] Another, more recent, variant is "participatory economics," wherein the economy is planned by decentralized councils of workers and consumers. Workers would be remunerated solely according to effort and sacrifice, so that those engaged in dangerous, uncomfortable, and strenuous work would receive the highest incomes and could thereby work less.[59] Some Marxists and Anarcho-communists also propose a worker managed economy based on workers councils, however unlike participatory economics in Anarcho communism workers are remunerated according to their needs (which are largely self determined in an anarcho communist system). Recently socialists have also been working with the Technocracy movement to promote such concepts as Energy Accounting.[citation needed]
Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and creates an unequal society. All socialists advocate the creation of an egalitarian society, in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly, although there is considerable disagreement among socialists over how, and to what extent this could be achieved
Even Obama's health care plan is nothing like socialism. He merely wants to extend coverage and lower premiums, those who have existing plans can keep them.
Furthermore, there is nothing wrong with Democratic Socialism as ins uted in Canada and the UK. I wish people would do their research before dismissing whole movements and ideas. Ask anyone from Canada or the UK if they would like to trade their healthcare system for a privatized system like we have. Not one of them would do that trade.
Again, nothing McCain nor Obama are offering even remotely comes close to what real socialism is. You're simply an idiot conservative who has listened to talk radio and Sean Hannity and now believes socialism is evil.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions