|
On January 07 2011 06:14 Haemonculus wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2011 01:08 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 06 2011 12:51 Haemonculus wrote:
And then there's the flawed notion that Socialism is the big scary terrible horrible awful no good very bad doom-of-the-country in the first place. Right wingers policy are always designed for an elite. Therefore, they need to scare people so that even people who don't have any interest (98% of the population) vote for them. We had exactly the same with Sarkozy, except that the target is not "socialism" but immigrants. French racism is generated by our governments and our medias so that people vote for policies which fuck them in the ass for the benefit of banks, corporations and their shareholders. But oh, folks, the most important is that we kick arabs out of here, right? This is pretty spot on. I've always been amazed at how so many poorer working class conservative folks continually vote for policies that remove/shrink public services. We have such a goddamn collective boner for the "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" mentality in this country. It's an incredible feat of fear to keep the masses voting against their personal interests, accomplished through several means; religion, (OMG MUSLIMS INVADING OUR COUNTRY), race, (OMG MEXICANS INVADING OUR COUNTRY), or political views, (LIBERALS HATE AMERICA AND YOU BY EXTENSION). Show nested quote +
This ideological bullcrap about "socialism" in US is just hilarious. Obama is everything in the world but a socialist. But old good irrational ignorant fear of the "red" is what keep Republican going since 50 years, no reason to stop now even if it doesn't make any sense. Especially when you have brainless zombie army such as Fox News as mainstream medias.
I wish Obama were a socialist, lol. The word doesn't even make sense in modern American politics. We have no real understanding of its meaning, and if you listen to most of the media, you'd think such policies would destroy society overnight. We're an incredibly divided nation. I didn't realize how sincerely some people held their beliefs until I recently moved up to Alaska. This is a really conservative area, and I've learned a lot debating with my friend's parents. They sincerely believe in creationism. They sincerely believe that the States have a negative carbon footprint, (because of all our wetlands apparently), and that environmental policies are a hoax to "hamper American profits". They sincerely believe Obama is a Muslim terrorist. I got my friend's mother to admit that if it were up to her, "We'd build the goddamn Berlin Wall from California to Texas to keep all the f***ing spics out." These people exist, and they vote.
The problem itself is the word "socialism" itself and the fact that we have "social welfare" programs. The majority of americans, even democrats, understand socialism to mean having a significant number of social welfare programs designed to promote a minimum standard of living. Even republicans are ok with social welfare programs at the local level, the majority simply think that doing things at the federal level is simply a waste of time and money since most of the money ends up in the wrong hands.
Yes you are right, socialism is not what obama is.
Dealing with conservative spin such as "obama is a muslim" is as simple as asking them "Do you really believe that?" and countering by offering a moderate negative perspective such as "Well, Obama isn't a muslim, but i don't think he's very religious (because he isn't)." is enough to get people off your back.
|
On January 07 2011 06:31 [Eternal]Phoenix wrote:
Yah I'm done in this topic too. I think we've all presented enough reasonable arguments that anyone who continues to post that kind of garbage is wasting our time.
It's one thing to look at data and interpret wrongly/differently. It's another thing to spew crap across the room at mach 2 because they can't contain their bullshit. When people make claims like that without evidence the best thing to do is ignore it, and that's what I'm going to do.
Trying not to be overly offensive. But from our debate in the other thread I have got the impression that you are complaining about practically what you did to the extreme. Repeating your statements over and over again without presenting the fact you base them on, does not make them more right, even if it may to you (social psychology tells us that continuous exposure to objects makes us like them more, see "mere exposure effect"). May I suggest that wherever you carry out your debates in the future, you try reasoning based on facts and open-mindedly discussing facts instead of opinions? I promise that will be a whole new experience where you can actually reason consensus.
Also:
+ Show Spoiler +Did we just kill two trolls in one strike? JK :p
|
On January 07 2011 08:24 Electric.Jesus wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2011 06:31 [Eternal]Phoenix wrote:
Yah I'm done in this topic too. I think we've all presented enough reasonable arguments that anyone who continues to post that kind of garbage is wasting our time.
It's one thing to look at data and interpret wrongly/differently. It's another thing to spew crap across the room at mach 2 because they can't contain their bullshit. When people make claims like that without evidence the best thing to do is ignore it, and that's what I'm going to do. Trying not to be overly offensive. But from our debate in the other thread I have got the impression that you are complaining about practically what you did to the extreme. Repeating your statements over and over again without presenting the fact you base them on, does not make them more right, even if it may to you (social psychology tells us that continuous exposure to objects makes us like them more, see "mere exposure effect"). May I suggest that wherever you carry out your debates in the future, you try reasoning based on facts and open-mindedly discussing facts instead of opinions? I promise that will be a whole new experience where you can actually reason consensus. Also: + Show Spoiler +Did we just kill two trolls in one strike? JK :p
The problem is you can present all the facts you want, but people will still call you an "idiot" or "troll", not because you are acting like one, but because you have a different ideology than them. Just talking from my experience in the general forum. My "fact" may be an "opinion" to you (just because you don't agree with it) and vice-versa. But we could play this game all day.
|
On January 07 2011 08:34 Scruffy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2011 08:24 Electric.Jesus wrote:On January 07 2011 06:31 [Eternal]Phoenix wrote:
Yah I'm done in this topic too. I think we've all presented enough reasonable arguments that anyone who continues to post that kind of garbage is wasting our time.
It's one thing to look at data and interpret wrongly/differently. It's another thing to spew crap across the room at mach 2 because they can't contain their bullshit. When people make claims like that without evidence the best thing to do is ignore it, and that's what I'm going to do. Trying not to be overly offensive. But from our debate in the other thread I have got the impression that you are complaining about practically what you did to the extreme. Repeating your statements over and over again without presenting the fact you base them on, does not make them more right, even if it may to you (social psychology tells us that continuous exposure to objects makes us like them more, see "mere exposure effect"). May I suggest that wherever you carry out your debates in the future, you try reasoning based on facts and open-mindedly discussing facts instead of opinions? I promise that will be a whole new experience where you can actually reason consensus. Also: + Show Spoiler +Did we just kill two trolls in one strike? JK :p The problem is you can present all the facts you want, but people will still call you an "idiot" or "troll", not because you are acting like one, but because you have a different ideology than them. Just talking from my experience in the general forum. My "fact" may be an "opinion" to you (just because you don't agree with it) and vice-versa. But we could play this game all day.
i think you just dont know what a fact is.
you can check fact and opinion in every dictionary. a fact just cannot be a opinion, how hard you ever believe your opinion is a fact, it will never be one.
|
On January 07 2011 08:34 Scruffy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2011 08:24 Electric.Jesus wrote:On January 07 2011 06:31 [Eternal]Phoenix wrote:
Yah I'm done in this topic too. I think we've all presented enough reasonable arguments that anyone who continues to post that kind of garbage is wasting our time.
It's one thing to look at data and interpret wrongly/differently. It's another thing to spew crap across the room at mach 2 because they can't contain their bullshit. When people make claims like that without evidence the best thing to do is ignore it, and that's what I'm going to do. Trying not to be overly offensive. But from our debate in the other thread I have got the impression that you are complaining about practically what you did to the extreme. Repeating your statements over and over again without presenting the fact you base them on, does not make them more right, even if it may to you (social psychology tells us that continuous exposure to objects makes us like them more, see "mere exposure effect"). May I suggest that wherever you carry out your debates in the future, you try reasoning based on facts and open-mindedly discussing facts instead of opinions? I promise that will be a whole new experience where you can actually reason consensus. Also: + Show Spoiler +Did we just kill two trolls in one strike? JK :p The problem is you can present all the facts you want, but people will still call you an "idiot" or "troll", not because you are acting like one, but because you have a different ideology than them. Just talking from my experience in the general forum. My "fact" may be an "opinion" to you (just because you don't agree with it) and vice-versa. But we could play this game all day.
Not all of them will. I have had debates on teamliquid where people brought up facts that I did not know or corrected me where I was objectively wrong which lead me (grudgingly, I have to admit) to revise my opinion. And I think that in some very rare occasions I was able to convince someone else to adjust their opinion due to presenting facts. There is yet hope but if we want to be able to have mature debates we must encourage evidence-based argumenting.
Edit: Also, I think that it is quite easy to test whether someone states facts or opinions. Consider, for example the statement: "Assange is a traitor". You can check pretty quickly that this is factually wrong from a legal standpoint, but as an opinion, it may be valid. Or consider "democrats are morally superior to republicans". This is also easily identifiable as an opinion.
If you can accept that, you can proceed to elaborate from which facts and within which value-system you derive this opinion. From there is is just a small step to a mature debate, in my eyes.
|
Politicians like to cry about having to cut things that benefit everybody, cops, fire, and defense. While they send big payoffs to their buddies in auto unions, wall street, and green companies partially owned by Al Gore.
|
On January 06 2011 12:35 Supamang wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2011 11:24 t3hwUn wrote:
Wow I love how TL hates on right wingers... I get flamed for being a troll for posting unpopular political opinions elsewhere and then I read this... Fail.
And to get back on topic +1 for no more obama socialist policies. If I wanted to live in Europe I'd move there... the word "socialist" gets thrown around waaaaaay too much. problem with people like you is that all you do is throw around talking points and cover your ears whenever people say anything rational. what has obama done that can be classified as "socialist"?
Sadly people don't realized that if it weren't for socialist policies the U.S economy would be dead
Examples of Socialist Policies:
1)Social Security
2)Medicare
3)Frikkin Reduce and free lunch in school
4)401K
5) Laws against Monopolies
6) Minimum wages(wages used to be completely competitive)
7) Anti Child Labor Laws
Pure Capitalism caused the Great Depression. For Capitalism to stabilize it is necessary to have "the social safety net" in order to counter act human greed, and prevent a devastating difference between rich and poor.
When Marx wrote that Capitalism would fail he refered to pure capitalistic society that existed at the moment, but failed to consider that the capitalist western countries would opt for socialist policies to bolster Capitalist ideals.
International Baccaluareate Program FTW. For once im actually happy about being informed.
|
On January 07 2011 09:13 GinDo wrote:
Pure Capitalism caused the Great Depression. For Capitalism to stabilize it is necessary to have "the social safety net" in order to counter act human greed, and prevent a devastating difference between rich and poor.
When Marx wrote that Capitalism would fail he refered to pure capitalistic society that existed at the moment, but failed to consider that the capitalist western countries would opt for socialist policies to bolster Capitalist ideals.
International Baccaluareate Program FTW. For once im actually happy about being informed.
You are wrong. We were not a pure capitalist country before the great depression. It was also prolonged by government intervention. Try reading some new books with opposite points of view.
|
On January 07 2011 09:13 GinDo wrote:
Sadly people don't realized that if it weren't for socialist policies the U.S economy would be dead
Examples of Socialist Policies:
1)Social Security
2)Medicare
3)Frikkin Reduce and free lunch in school
4)401K
5) Laws against Monopolies
6) Minimum wages(wages used to be completely competitive)
7) Anti Child Labor Laws
Pure Capitalism caused the Great Depression. For Capitalism to stabilize it is necessary to have "the social safety net" in order to counter act human greed, and prevent a devastating difference between rich and poor.
When Marx wrote that Capitalism would fail he refered to pure capitalistic society that existed at the moment, but failed to consider that the capitalist western countries would opt for socialist policies to bolster Capitalist ideals.
International Baccaluareate Program FTW. For once im actually happy about being informed.
Well, I do not think we actually have real capitalism, rather its capitalism for the poor and socialism for the rich. Profit gets privatized whereas losses are socialized (state-sponsored bank bail-out, anyone?). The systems we live have a tendency to combine the advantages of both capitalism and socialism for the rich at the cost of the rest of society.
|
On January 07 2011 09:25 Electric.Jesus wrote:
Its capitalism for the poor and socialism for the rich.
Seems to be the case with government bailouts
|
On January 07 2011 09:25 Electric.Jesus wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2011 09:13 GinDo wrote:
Sadly people don't realized that if it weren't for socialist policies the U.S economy would be dead
Examples of Socialist Policies:
1)Social Security
2)Medicare
3)Frikkin Reduce and free lunch in school
4)401K
5) Laws against Monopolies
6) Minimum wages(wages used to be completely competitive)
7) Anti Child Labor Laws
Pure Capitalism caused the Great Depression. For Capitalism to stabilize it is necessary to have "the social safety net" in order to counter act human greed, and prevent a devastating difference between rich and poor.
When Marx wrote that Capitalism would fail he refered to pure capitalistic society that existed at the moment, but failed to consider that the capitalist western countries would opt for socialist policies to bolster Capitalist ideals.
International Baccaluareate Program FTW. For once im actually happy about being informed. Well, I do not think we actually have real capitalism, rather its capitalism for the poor and socialism for the rich. Profit gets privatized whereas losses are socialized (state-sponsored bank bail-out, anyone?). The systems we live have a tendency to combine the advantages of both capitalism and socialism for the rich at the cost of the rest of society.
Im talking about pre World War I era. We were a pure Capitalistic society as their were no limits on economics that we see post Great depression, such as social security Welfare, Minimum wage, etc etc.
|
On January 07 2011 09:20 TributeBoxer wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2011 09:13 GinDo wrote:
Pure Capitalism caused the Great Depression. For Capitalism to stabilize it is necessary to have "the social safety net" in order to counter act human greed, and prevent a devastating difference between rich and poor.
When Marx wrote that Capitalism would fail he refered to pure capitalistic society that existed at the moment, but failed to consider that the capitalist western countries would opt for socialist policies to bolster Capitalist ideals.
International Baccaluareate Program FTW. For once im actually happy about being informed. You are wrong. We were not a pure capitalist country before the great depression. It was also prolonged by government intervention. Try reading some new books with opposite points of view.
So im wrong and i should read books with opposite opinions, ok maybe you should too. That statement has no value of argument.
And did you just say the GD was prolonged by government intervention? The combination of FDR's New Deal and the Economic boost from World War 2 Wartime economy served as the solution to the Great Depression. WW2 created jobs by opening markets in the War department, US export of Weapons and food stamps skyrocketed, and the unemployed men were shipped oversees to fight.
Don't argue with an Econ Major. 
|
I find myself agreeing with the French people in almost every TL thread, and I feel bad when they have to argue us in the US about common sense issues.
You have to regulate capitalism or it ends in revolution between the very rich and the very poor. Taxes are a part of regulation. You have to penalize the very rich. What's so hard to understand about that?
I always hear republicans talk about lowering taxes, while democrats talk about helping people.
I have not heard one new project idea from the republican side after watching many news clips and coverage on cspan.
|
On January 07 2011 09:44 jungsu wrote:
I find myself agreeing with the French people in almost every TL thread, and I feel bad when they have to argue us in the US about common sense issues.
You have to regulate capitalism or it ends in revolution between the very rich and the very poor. Taxes are a part of regulation. You have to penalize the very rich. What's so hard to understand about that?
I always hear republicans talk about lowering taxes, while democrats talk about helping people.
I have not heard one new project idea from the republican side after watching many news clips and coverage on cspan.
Do you penalize the rich because they are INHERENTLY BAD EVIL PEOPLE? LIke Warren Buffet? Who is evil?
Totally separately I'm sorry I've created the thread. Now is some giant cesspool of political accusations.
|
On January 07 2011 09:20 TributeBoxer wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2011 09:13 GinDo wrote:
Pure Capitalism caused the Great Depression. For Capitalism to stabilize it is necessary to have "the social safety net" in order to counter act human greed, and prevent a devastating difference between rich and poor.
When Marx wrote that Capitalism would fail he refered to pure capitalistic society that existed at the moment, but failed to consider that the capitalist western countries would opt for socialist policies to bolster Capitalist ideals.
International Baccaluareate Program FTW. For once im actually happy about being informed. You are wrong. We were not a pure capitalist country before the great depression. It was also prolonged by government intervention. Try reading some new books with opposite points of view.
There were no socialist policies before the Great Depression. That has nothing to do with books or opinions or anything. What before the Great Depression made us "impure" in terms of capitalism? What are you talking about?
And why is this being brought up, anyway? The new system lets Congress be LESS frugal with your money. If anything, fiscal conservatives should be heavily against this. Pay-As-You-Go is much stricter than this bullshit.
There is nothing fiscally responsible about the republican party.
|
On January 07 2011 09:41 GinDo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2011 09:20 TributeBoxer wrote:On January 07 2011 09:13 GinDo wrote:
Pure Capitalism caused the Great Depression. For Capitalism to stabilize it is necessary to have "the social safety net" in order to counter act human greed, and prevent a devastating difference between rich and poor.
When Marx wrote that Capitalism would fail he refered to pure capitalistic society that existed at the moment, but failed to consider that the capitalist western countries would opt for socialist policies to bolster Capitalist ideals.
International Baccaluareate Program FTW. For once im actually happy about being informed. You are wrong. We were not a pure capitalist country before the great depression. It was also prolonged by government intervention. Try reading some new books with opposite points of view. So im wrong and i should read books with opposite opinions, ok maybe you should too. That statement has no value of argument. And did you just say the GD was prolonged by government intervention? The combination of FDR's New Deal and the Economic boost from World War 2 Wartime economy served as the solution to the Great Depression. WW2 created jobs by opening markets in the War department, US export of Weapons and food stamps skyrocketed, and the unemployed men were shipped oversees to fight. Don't argue with an Econ Major.
And then post-WW2 we had an advantage in that our economic competitors in Europe and Asia had their infrastructures ravaged and destroyed by years of war. The American industrial machine was relatively untouched.
|
On January 07 2011 09:47 Froadac wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2011 09:44 jungsu wrote:
I find myself agreeing with the French people in almost every TL thread, and I feel bad when they have to argue us in the US about common sense issues.
You have to regulate capitalism or it ends in revolution between the very rich and the very poor. Taxes are a part of regulation. You have to penalize the very rich. What's so hard to understand about that?
I always hear republicans talk about lowering taxes, while democrats talk about helping people.
I have not heard one new project idea from the republican side after watching many news clips and coverage on cspan. Do you penalize the rich because they are INHERENTLY BAD EVIL PEOPLE? LIke Warren Buffet? Who is evil? Totally separately I'm sorry I've created the thread. Now is some giant cesspool of political accusations.
The logical end of your thinking is a dictatorship.
You penalize the rich because human nature is imperfect and greedy, and no one person, or small subset of persons, should be allowed too much power.
|
For all of those who think capitalism is the cause of the great depression. Milton Freedom wrote about how the federal reserve was the cause of the great depression. Ben Bernake, the current fed, recently said that yes, it was the federal reserves fault and they are sorry. Take that anti-capitalists.
Quote
" I would like to say to Milton and Anna [Schwartz, Friedman's coauthor]: Regarding the Great Depression. You're right, we did it. We're very sorry. But thanks to you, we won't do it again."[46] Bernanke has cited Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz in his decision to lower interest rates to zero."
Freaking wikipedia
|
i love the economics arguing. It is doubtful any1 in this thread is an economist or business major. Note: I'm not an economist. Both Hayek's policy (leave it alone it will fix itself) and Keynsian policy (socialism, throwing money at the problem) work. Each is different, they work in different ways. Different people like different shit, I personally prefer Hayek's laissez-fair approach, if someone is corrupt people will stop trading with them and thus they will become obsolete and if needed moderate government assistance to stop monopolies, trusts, etc. moreover, keynsian policy throws money @ the problem, creates social programs like medicare, medicaid, etc etc etc. The problem w/ socialism is that it maintains a lifestyle for forever basically which doesn't lead to any leaps in technology. I honestly don't get it, if you like socialism, move to canada or europe--if you like capitalism move to america. the decision isn't hard, but arguing on forums doesn't help.
|
On January 07 2011 09:59 Question132 wrote:
i love the economics arguing. It is doubtful any1 in this thread is an economist or business major. Note: I'm not an economist. Both Hayek's policy (leave it alone it will fix itself) and Keynsian policy (socialism, throwing money at the problem) work. Each is different, they work in different ways. Different people like different shit, I personally prefer Hayek's laissez-fair approach, if someone is corrupt people will stop trading with them and thus they will become obsolete and if needed moderate government assistance to stop monopolies, trusts, etc. moreover, keynsian policy throws money @ the problem, creates social programs like medicare, medicaid, etc etc etc. The problem w/ socialism is that it maintains a lifestyle for forever basically which doesn't lead to any leaps in technology. I honestly don't get it, if you like socialism, move to canada or europe--if you like capitalism move to america. the decision isn't hard, but arguing on forums doesn't help.
Yes, because packing up your entire life and moving overseas is easy. We're not all in such a position to leave everything you know behind, lol.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
