Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On June 30 2018 05:49 screamingpalm wrote: Wow all this hate for socialism. The irony, is there is a large amount of socialism baked into our Constitution which people seem to forget. Article 1 Section 8 is a good example, where it mandates Congress to mint and tax to provide for the people. Our most popular (and I would argue- greatest) president ever was a Democratic Socialist. Elected four times, brought us out of the Great Depression, defeated fascism, gave us full employment, and was so loved that term limits were created to prevent it from happening ever again. When people say that this country would never accept an "avowed socialist" *sic*, perhaps they fell asleep in history class.
I also find it funny that someone earlier claimed that NPR was a reliable source. It is nothing more than corporatist and Clintonite propaganda and completely off when it comes to economics and how our monetary system operates. But this is a huge problem throughout our society. There is a woeful lack of education combined with severe propaganda campaigns to keep everyone misinformed. It allows politicians to play us like fools.
when you say "avowed socialist" do you mean self-avowed? or are you counting cases wherein someone else said it; but the person himself did not?
also, not sure what your point about term limits is; can you clarify what you're saying is the reason term limits were put in after fdr?
Hey look, someone came in and put a bunch of buzz words in front of NPR, somehow proving it is not a reliable source of information. I bet that person listens to the leftist propaganda machine created by pro-communists to destroy American’s faith in the news originations and make it easier for communism to take over this country. If only that person was self aware enough to realize they were being radicalized, but I guess that is why there are a socialist? Right guys?
Just kidding, I don’t believe any of that. But I could engage with the discussion with broad, sweeping statements and passive aggressive aspersions on people’s intelligence. It easy to the point of laziness.
If we are going to engage in critique of news coverage, people need to cite reporters and stories with specificity. If the reporting is that bad, it shouldn’t be that hard to do.
On June 30 2018 05:57 zlefin wrote: when you say "avowed socialist" do you mean self-avowed? or are you counting cases wherein someone else said it; but the person himself did not?
also, not sure what your point about term limits is; can you clarify what you're saying is the reason term limits were put in after fdr?
The typical fear-mongering you hear from the right, such as Fox or xDaunt here about how this country would never elect a socialist. Usually using the word "avowed".
It should be pretty obvious of why term limits were put into place by the right after FDR.
On June 30 2018 05:49 screamingpalm wrote: Wow all this hate for socialism. The irony, is there is a large amount of socialism baked into our Constitution which people seem to forget. Article 1 Section 8 is a good example, where it mandates Congress to mint and tax to provide for the people. Our most popular (and I would argue- greatest) president ever was a Democratic Socialist. Elected four times, brought us out of the Great Depression, defeated fascism, gave us full employment, and was so loved that term limits were created to prevent it from happening ever again. When people say that this country would never accept an "avowed socialist" *sic*, perhaps they fell asleep in history class.
I also find it funny that someone earlier claimed that NPR was a reliable source. It is nothing more than corporatist and Clintonite propaganda and completely off when it comes to economics and how our monetary system operates. But this is a huge problem throughout our society. There is a woeful lack of education combined with severe propaganda campaigns to keep everyone misinformed. It allows politicians to play us like fools.
I think a lot of people hate socialism because they see it when it is used to disguise a totalitarian dictatorship. And then a lot of people think that is the only way it operates. It's not like you see a lot of people getting mad at Sweden, Finland or Norway.
Actually, you see conservatives railing against European democratic socialist nations a lot. And then you end up with an ambassador to the Netherlands being called on his lies about no-go zones in Netherlands by the Dutch media using a recording of him lying, right after he denied saying it an called the accusation fake news.
Because they hate that these nations are succeeding and have generally happy populaces, because it contrasts really badly with what happens when conservatives actually get what they want. See for reference Kansas, Oklahoma, and Louisiana.
On June 30 2018 05:57 zlefin wrote: when you say "avowed socialist" do you mean self-avowed? or are you counting cases wherein someone else said it; but the person himself did not?
also, not sure what your point about term limits is; can you clarify what you're saying is the reason term limits were put in after fdr?
The typical fear-mongering you hear from the right, such as Fox or xDaunt here about how this country would never elect a socialist. Usually using the word "avowed".
It should be pretty obvious of why term limits were put into place by the right after FDR.
ok, so you mean a self-avowed socialist then? Do you have a quote of FDR saying he's a socialist?
on term limits; it should be obvious, but from your statements it sounds like you're thinking there was a different reason than the one I was thinking. so I want to hear what YOU think the reason is.
I think Americans in particular have this idea drummed into them from a young age that any socialism is too much socialism. This idea runs completely counter to the reality of the last 100 years of economic and political progress, during which the overwhelming majority of modern western societies have overlaid a base of capitalism with varying degrees of socialism in an attempt to try and find the right balance.
Personally I would like the UK to go for some socialism, at least for a while, because our poor are suffering (relatively - compared to average levels), but it all depends on context. If your economy needs a boost, regulate less, if your poor are suffering, regulate more.
People who discuss socialism and capitalism in absolute terms are missing the point entirely.
On June 30 2018 05:58 Plansix wrote: Hey look, someone came in and put a bunch of buzz words in front of NPR, somehow proving it is not a reliable source of information. I bet that person listens to the leftist propaganda machine created by pro-communists to destroy American’s faith in the news originations and make it easier for communism to take over this country. If only that person was self aware enough to realize they were being radicalized, but I guess that is why there are a socialist? Right guys?
Just kidding, I don’t believe any of that. But I could engage with the discussion with broad, sweeping statements and passive aggressive aspersions on people’s intelligence. It easy to the point of laziness.
If we are going to engage in critique of news coverage, people need to cite reporters and stories with specificity. If the reporting is that bad, it shouldn’t be that hard to do.
I am not going to go search for old NPR articles that spout the usual faulty tax and spend economics. Instead of giving them more attention, I'll leave this "radical" rebuttal to what they always get wrong.
On June 30 2018 05:49 screamingpalm wrote: Wow all this hate for socialism. The irony, is there is a large amount of socialism baked into our Constitution which people seem to forget. Article 1 Section 8 is a good example, where it mandates Congress to mint and tax to provide for the people. Our most popular (and I would argue- greatest) president ever was a Democratic Socialist. Elected four times, brought us out of the Great Depression, defeated fascism, gave us full employment, and was so loved that term limits were created to prevent it from happening ever again. When people say that this country would never accept an "avowed socialist" *sic*, perhaps they fell asleep in history class.
I also find it funny that someone earlier claimed that NPR was a reliable source. It is nothing more than corporatist and Clintonite propaganda and completely off when it comes to economics and how our monetary system operates. But this is a huge problem throughout our society. There is a woeful lack of education combined with severe propaganda campaigns to keep everyone misinformed. It allows politicians to play us like fools.
I think a lot of people hate socialism because they see it when it is used to disguise a totalitarian dictatorship. And then a lot of people think that is the only way it operates. It's not like you see a lot of people getting mad at Sweden, Finland or Norway.
Actually, you see conservatives railing against European democratic socialist nations a lot. And then you end up with an ambassador to the Netherlands being called on his lies about no-go zones in Netherlands by the Dutch media using a recording of him lying, right after he denied saying it an called the accusation fake news.
Because they hate that these nations are succeeding and have generally happy populaces, because it contrasts really badly with what happens when conservatives actually get what they want. See for reference Kansas, Oklahoma, and Louisiana.
The best are the ones that say both the Nazis and Communists were socialists, therefore evil. Its like seeing the failure of their history, government and basic critical thinking education all at once.
On June 30 2018 05:58 Plansix wrote: Hey look, someone came in and put a bunch of buzz words in front of NPR, somehow proving it is not a reliable source of information. I bet that person listens to the leftist propaganda machine created by pro-communists to destroy American’s faith in the news originations and make it easier for communism to take over this country. If only that person was self aware enough to realize they were being radicalized, but I guess that is why there are a socialist? Right guys?
Just kidding, I don’t believe any of that. But I could engage with the discussion with broad, sweeping statements and passive aggressive aspersions on people’s intelligence. It easy to the point of laziness.
If we are going to engage in critique of news coverage, people need to cite reporters and stories with specificity. If the reporting is that bad, it shouldn’t be that hard to do.
I am not going to go search for old NPR articles that spout the usual faulty tax and spend economics. Instead of giving them more attention, I'll leave this "radical" rebuttal to what they always get wrong.
Ok, so you are a bit new to this thread. We don’t allow arguments via youtube copy pasta. I am not watching a two hour video to respond to post that took you 15 seconds google and paste. Either make your own substantive argument using your own words or drop it.
On June 30 2018 06:29 screamingpalm wrote: I'm not here to sit around and squabble. Either watch the information and thank me, or leave it. Maybe someone else will find it enlightening.
If you can't defend your statements in your own words, you shouldn't be discussing anything then.
On June 30 2018 06:29 screamingpalm wrote: I'm not here to sit around and squabble. Either watch the information and thank me, or leave it. Maybe someone else will find it enlightening.
This is a discussion forum, why come here if you don't want to discuss, teach, or learn anything? posting vids doesn't help teach, if someone wanted to learn we all have hte internet already; and unless you interact with us there's no reason to give any credence to your assessment of the vids having something worth watching. at any rate, I'd still like the answers to those other questions I posed of you.
There is a ton of information in that video. It would be much more useful if people understood the fundamentals first, then have a productive discussion. As far a credence, Stephanie Kelton was Bernie Sanders's economic adviser during the primary. Seems like that would be worthy of listening to. What do you want a tl;dr? A multi-page essay from me explaining it? I'd rather have people understand basic operational finance first, then have the discussion.
On June 30 2018 06:29 screamingpalm wrote: I'm not here to sit around and squabble. Either watch the information and thank me, or leave it. Maybe someone else will find it enlightening.
I am sure after this post they will be rushing to watch the +2 hour trove of top tier knowledge you have provided us. Prepare your inbox.
On June 30 2018 06:38 screamingpalm wrote: There is a ton of information in that video. It would be much more useful if people understood the fundamentals first, then have a productive discussion. As far a credence, Stephanie Kelton was Bernie Sanders's economic adviser during the primary. Seems like that would be worthy of listening to. What do you want a tl;dr? A multi-page essay from me explaining it? I'd rather have people understand basic operational finance first, then have the discussion.
Most of use read 10 times faster than any video plays, so maybe linking articles would be a more productive way to make your argument. God know it would show the slightest bit of respect for our time.
On June 30 2018 06:38 screamingpalm wrote: There is a ton of information in that video. It would be much more useful if people understood the fundamentals first, then have a productive discussion. As far a credence, Stephanie Kelton was Bernie Sanders's economic adviser during the primary. Seems like that would be worthy of listening to. What do you want a tl;dr? A multi-page essay from me explaining it? I'd rather have people understand basic operational finance first, then have the discussion.
Quite a few people on this thread have a far higher understanding of finance than a 2 hour youtube presentation.
I suggest discussing instead of pretending you're above the discussion.
On June 30 2018 06:38 screamingpalm wrote: There is a ton of information in that video. It would be much more useful if people understood the fundamentals first, then have a productive discussion. As far a credence, Stephanie Kelton was Bernie Sanders's economic adviser during the primary. Seems like that would be worthy of listening to. What do you want a tl;dr? A multi-page essay from me explaining it? I'd rather have people understand basic operational finance first, then have the discussion.
I do understand the fundamentals of economics already. and you still haven't answered the questions I asked. shall I take it that you refuse to answer them?
On June 30 2018 06:45 screamingpalm wrote: Spoken like a true moderate Dem/Clinton supporter who already knows everything with your fingers in your ears.
How am I to learn anything if you refuse to provide the information? It's not me sticking my fingers in my ears if I ask you questions to learn more about your claims and you refuse to say anything on them.
On June 30 2018 06:38 screamingpalm wrote: There is a ton of information in that video. It would be much more useful if people understood the fundamentals first, then have a productive discussion. As far a credence, Stephanie Kelton was Bernie Sanders's economic adviser during the primary. Seems like that would be worthy of listening to. What do you want a tl;dr? A multi-page essay from me explaining it? I'd rather have people understand basic operational finance first, then have the discussion.
If everyone did as you did, this would be simply a video aggregate thread. "I see your two 1 hour videos and raise you three2 hour videos." Of course it would be helpful if people watched informational videos. So, too if we read more books. But it isn't an argument to say 'don't bother to answer until you've read all the works of Tolstoy, then you'll see why you are wrong, and then we'll talk.'
Excerpt, Sum up. Type relevant quotes and explain your argument. This isn't a video aggregate thread.
EPT
:
