I brought up due process here first when you were ready to tar and feather Roy Moore. I brought it up. Me. Pick a lane Pavlov.
I was against Roy Moore because he's an idiot.
Which lane are you in now, Chris?
Chris wants more socialism.
He's pointing out you're the one weaving between lanes, genius
How am I weaving between the lanes Blake? Be specific - what did I say?
The Right one.
Pavlov utilizing the Saul Alinsky playbook. Didn't work for the DNC, but maybe it will work for him.Chris wants more socialism.
Which is what?
You're for "due process" for Roy Moore but not any Clinton.
How is government infrastructure spending not socialist, Chris? Especially the rural area plans you didn't even bother to read about?Pavlov utilizing the Saul Alinsky playbook. Didn't work for the DNC, but maybe it will work for him.
Explain.
Never said such.
Better question. How is it Socialism? Back up your claims.How is government infrastructure spending not socialist, Chris?
More projection from you. Do you ever know when to quit?Especially the rural area plans you didn't even bother to read about?
Your posts for each speak for themselves.
You have declared the Clintons guilty of many crimes without any trial. You deny any allegation against Moore without a jury conviction.
It's government spending of tax money on public works.Better question. How is it Socialism? Back up your claims.
Here's a column from that pinko rag Forbes that could help you understand but you won't read it:
We're All Infrastructure Socialists
Timothy B. Lee , CONTRIBUTOR
I'm grateful for the many thoughtful responses to my post yesterday about broadband policy and infrastructure socialism. A few people (including Adam himself) suggested that my le, "Adam Thierer, Infrastructure Socialist," was meant as an insult. This was not my intention.
To the contrary, the point of the post was that to some extent everyone who's not an anarchist is an infrastructure socialist. For example, I've never seen a libertarian give a coherent explanation of how a free market in roads would work. Even the freeway privatization proposals of folks like Bob Poole typically involve private management of government-owned roads rather than full private ownership. Indeed, in The Cons ution of Liberty, Friedrich Hayek argues that the provision of roads is the proper domain of government:
"There are some kinds of services, such as sanitation or roads, which, once they are provided, are normally sufficient for all who want to use them. The provision of of such services has long been a recognized field of public effort, and the right to share in them is an important part of the protected sphere of the individual. We need only remember the role that the assured 'access to the King's highway' has played in history to see how important such rights may be for individual liberty."
To put this in slightly provocative terms, Hayek, like most libertarians, is an "infrastructure socialist" when it comes to roads. Socialism means government ownership of the means of production, and governments necessarily own the land on which roads are constructed. Therefore, governments are always going to be involved in the provision of roads; the only question is what role the government should play.
The point of my previous post was to suggest that the same basic argument applies to broadband networks. To build a broadband network, you need to use government-owned rights of way. The government is Verizon's landlord. This makes broadband services fundamentally different from products like shoes or cans of soda that can be built in factories operating entirely on private property.
Geoffrey Manne and Jim Harper both left comments arguing that the problem with line-sharing schemes (assuming, in Jim's case, that they're imposed via a franchise agreement rather than legislative fiat) is that they're inefficient and bad for consumer welfare. As it happens, I agree with them, at least with respect to the line-sharing schemes promoted by the FCC in the late 1990s. But these are not arguments about individual liberty, they're claims about the empirical effectiveness of line-sharing schemes. Which is great—we need to figure out what broadband policies work best. But the point of my last post was simply that in trying to figure out what works, we shouldn't be under the illusion that one of the options is a pure free market in broadband services. We're all "infrastructure socialists" to some extent, the question is what kind of infrastructure socialism will give us the most efficient and compe ive broadband market.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/timothy.../#5127f1da1e73
Explain all the rural initiatives in the plan and how they aren't socialist in nature.More projection from you. Do you ever know when to quit?
I didn't ask for an article from Forbes Pavlov. I figured you were full of Schiff.
You asked this:
I answered your question and backed up my claim.
You didn't answer the question I asked first and also asked after I answered.
You're way out of your depth. Stick to irrelevant memes.
We know Trump loves the Norwegians and wants to admit them here but do his followers? ...and do his followers know what kind of government they have in Norway?
i'm not a follower of his but nah... they can stay in norway! we don't need any new people fleeing countries when there's plenty of countries out there they can go to instead. we need to start fixing our own problems with our own citizens, infrastructure, health, etc... refugees can go be refugees/immigrants some place else other than here!
i live in los angeles.
i pay federal income taxes.
federal government uses that tax money to fund rural infrastructure projects in some other state which has no effect one me.
redistribution of wealth.
if it was a state tax to fund a state project, or local tax for local project, it would be less of a redistribution. the feds doing it is incredibly socialist
Lol Chris doesn't understand basic concept of socialism
LMAO!!!!
Trump proposes eliminating federal funding for PBS, NPR
No more federally funded Trump bashing
Trump releases 2019 budget
********: On | Off
President Trump's newly proposed budget includes a proposal to end federal funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), part of a package that includes $300 billion in new spending overall.
CPB provides federal funding for PBS and National Public Radio stations.
"The Budget proposes to eliminate Federal funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) over a two year period," according to the proposal.
"CPB grants represent a small share of the total funding for the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) and National Public Radio (NPR), which primarily rely on private donations to fund their operations," it continues.
"To conduct an orderly transition away from Federal funding, the Budget requests $15.5 million in 2019 and $15 million in 2020, which would include funding for personnel costs of $16.2 million, rental costs of $8.9 million; and other costs totaling $5.4 million."
In a statement in March 2017 after the first Trump budget proposed the elimination of CPB, the 50-year-old nonprofit characterized itself as “one of America’s best investments.”
“We will work with the new administration and Congress in raising awareness that elimination of federal funding to CPB begins the collapse of the public media system itself and the end of the essential national service," CPB President Patricia Harrison said.
“There is no viable subs ute for federal funding that ensures Americans have universal access to public media’s educational and informational programming and services," she added.
“The elimination of federal funding to CPB would initially devastate and ultimately destroy public media’s role in early childhood education, public safety, connecting citizens to our history, and promoting civil discussions — all for Americans in both rural and urban communities.”
Responding to Trump's budget, the CPB's head said the cuts would hurt emergency alert systems and childhood programming, among other things.
PBS CEO Paula Kerger said at a TV critics meeting last July that a number of PBS stations across the country are dependent on federal funding in order to survive.
"PBS will not go away, but a number of our stations will," Kerger said on July 30. "There is no Plan B for that."
Trump's budget requires congressional approval before it can take effect. Public broadcasting has survived previous presidential threats to cut its funding.
http://thehill.com/homenews/media/37...ng-for-pbs-npr
This is the best news since Trump got elected
TX ruralitos, rabidly, incorrigibly Repug, have been paying $5/month for "socialized" telephone lines for decades financed by "universal services fees" on all telephone bills, while metro area suckers were paying $30.
Only in the last few years have rural users seen the cost of tel lines increasing to match metro areas.
KIM’S CREEPY ARMY: North Korea's 'COMMUNIST CHEERLEADERS’ Shock Olympic Games
North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un’s “cheerleader army” stole the show at the 2018 Winter Olympic Games this week; surprising international guests and raising eyebrows with their “creepy” chants and maneuvers.
The communist cheerleaders -which outnumber North Korean athletes by ten to one- were the highlight of the women’s hockey compe ion during the international games; screaming and clapping in unison as spectators watched the eerie display.
“More than 200 of them sang and smiled all night long, carrying the show long after the game was decided. Then, for good measure, they kept on going for 15 minutes after it was over before finally marching off in two perfectly formed long lines,” reports Yahoo News.
Despite the fun and games, Kim’s cheerleader army -clad in red- represent a brutal communist Kingdom known for barbaric torture techniques and horrendous human rights violations.
Watch Kim’s creepy army above.
https://www.hannity.com/media-room/k...olympic-games/
Well, he is standing with the North Koreans.
Let that sink in.
What's the joke there?
Not getting the joke
There are currently 10 users browsing this thread. (1 members and 9 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
