Oh, I get your comment about how I somehow think you’re the only enemy, now. You thought I was blaming just the libertarians. You guys really are a party of arrogant sociopaths, aren’t you? No no, the democrats (Blue dogs and some of the less left ones) and republicans, Clinton and Bush the Lesser (Not Bush Sr, surprisingly) all got caught with their hands in the cookie jar of the latest economic mess. And you can all have a nice tall glass of shut the fuck up for continuing this charade where socialism is a boogey man. (You invoked the current US government as an example of socialism failing. That would go on Failblog if it were snappier)
But no, by no means are you the only roadblock to a better society.
Not only was the US invoked as an example of socialism failing in a way that is ignorant of modern American government, but it was also very historically ignorant as well. Socialists were involved very closely in the US union movement, the movement to end child labour, the women’s suffrage movement (yes, the Socialist Party of America supported suffrage from 1900 and had one of the most successful third party campaigns post civil war when women first won the vote, even with the candidate in prison), the organizing of tenant farmers, and the African American civil rights movement (look up A. Phillip Randolp). It was a socialist who sued to force the Congress to only be allowed to view qualifications in terms of age and citizenship and not in terms of political views (there was one third party socialist who was freely elected to the House of Representatives three times and never was allowed to serve). Also, the first major gay rights org in the US was communist linked when it was founded, in part because of Lenin’s massively pro-sex policies (yes, Vladamir Lenin legalized adultury, sodomy, consensual adult incest, and abortion, and his stated postion on sexual rights was that only rape, which harmed other citizens, was to be banned, Stalin overturned all of this). Also, a third party socialist group, the Black Panthers, had one of its founders write passionately about the rights of gay people and supported the women’s movement in 1970. Also, Socialist and Communist parties in the US pretty uniformly hate US drug policy (even the panthers, who hated drug use and drug dealing, hated US drug policy), in large part because of the intensely racist and classist way in which it operates. Even the one hard core Stalinist I know hates US drug policy and sees it as a form of class warfare.
The US has had major anti-stalinist socialist activism that has had positive results. In the US, people live in a fear of the communist strawman (who is also often depicted as gay, foreign, and/or not white) instead of actually learning history or considering different political and economic theories.
lunchstealersays
Yeah, Obamacare as passed seems more like national socialism than actual socialism. It’s government protection/promotion of private business masquerading as populist healthcare-for-all policy.
One of the reasons I’m wary of government involvement in industry is that it tends to entrench powerful interests. Not always, but often.
semiapiessays
So you’re going to choose not to tell me.
No, I’m going to choose not to repeat myself between posts on one thread at your demand. :)
We did. 30 years post the great depression before a major economic hit at all
Except, of course, all through that time period and decades after? Economic cycles.
Upturns. Downturns. Bubbles. Bailouts. None of this is new.
You can claim otherwise, but I’m not going to fall for that any more than I’d spend hours on a creationist or a climate change denier.
Really? You’re going to call the current US government socialist?
No, that’s rather the point that sailed over the heads of you and long-URL-person.
Libertarians are no more influential than socialists are. You can say whatever silliness you like about deregulation and say whatever given example of fiscal or financial policy is what libertarians want, but we could just as sensibly say socialist ideas were responsible for Gitmo – to spell it out for you two, not at all.
You really have that little an idea how little “deregulation” has happened, do you? You don’t know how much regulation has merely changed, and how affirmative government action to encourage the problem has happened.
To you, it’s all teh evil deregulated corporationy people in their corporationy buildings.
Your point would be? You’re acting like Flex’s question was based on cheap sentiment; It isn’t.
Actually, that was the strange guy’s question.
And yes, it was, unless you’re going to tell me that it’s all well and good in your worldview for an adult to starve, just so long as he doesn’t have a child…
Further, you didn’t ask me whether it was okay for people to starve (It’s not).
…And you’re not. The only reason for the strange guy asking about $5 to save a child and not $5 to save an adult? Cheap sentiment.
The only reason you’re pretending someone could get arrested at a grocery store, say there’s a minor child in failing health unattended at his home, and that child would certainly be left to starve? Cheap sentiment.
You didn’t answer the question. You evaded it, saying that we can’t work with that question in deciding policy.
I answered his question (not the question in your head) exactly – “should” is not something I’m willing to judge desperate people on. I don’t think you should rob me or assault me, but I could forgive you stealing a few bucks or a loaf of bread from me if you needed it. If I were a store employee, I’d prefer you had the human decency to simply demand I get out of the way while brandishing your knife (why would I want to get stabbed for that loaf?), but I might be able to forgive you if you managed not to hit anything vital. Maybe.
Because, yes, “would you stab that guy or let that child starve?” is just as worthlessly loaded as “would you let that child starve or let me take from you and others?” It’s a contrived situation, designed to ignore how else someone of whatever political view would try to solve the situation, at either a personal or broader level. And yes, I do think a genuinely deregulated economy and a negative income tax would likely be far better for anyone remotely that badly-off (to both survive and better eir life) than the current system or anything it sounds like you’d implement.
Disagree? Ehn.
Oh, I get your comment about how I somehow think you’re the only enemy, now.
No, no you don’t.
In all sincerity, with no sarcasm or snark, I’m sorry that you have so much hostility towards people who think differently from you. I don’t even think you’re being deliberately dishonest or unreasonable, just overcome at an “enemy” breaking into the two-minute hate and not following the script.
You’ve given me pause, Rutee. I won’t drop any unwanted advice on you, but you’ve inspired me to try harder to avoid getting angry at regular people who are Democrats, Republicans, or other statists like you.
(Politicians exempted.)
Take care, Rutee and the rest.
Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooomsays
Yeah, Obamacare as passed seems more like national socialism than actual socialism.
Thread’s over. Have a good day.
lunchstealersays
Oh, so I can have a nice glass of shut the fuck up for calling it socialism, but when I say ‘yeah, it’s not socialism’ I can ALSO have a nice glass of shut the fuck up?
And I’m supposed to be the sociopath?
Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooomsays
I see you’re not familiar with Godwin’s Law. Go fucking google it.
lunchstealersays
Oy, in a thread about senses of humor….
FWIW, I typically only assume that Godwin is only invoked if the post SERIOUSLY compares someone/something to Hitler and/or NAZI policy. I was just riffing on the idea that most of the knee-jerk team-red cheerleaders in the later stages of the teabagger movement were spouting ‘socialism’ at something that was anything but.
Rev. BigDumbChimpsays
FWIW, I typically only assume that Godwin is only invoked if the post SERIOUSLY compares someone/something to Hitler and/or NAZI policy. I was just riffing on the idea that most of the knee-jerk team-red cheerleaders in the later stages of the teabagger movement were spouting ‘socialism’ at something that was anything but.
Well speaking of national socialism in reference to “obamacare” may not be godwining, but it does reveal your complete lack of historical perspective along side your idiocy.
So you’ve got that going for you.
lunchstealersays
Are you arguing that it shows more historical perspective and less idiocy to call it regular socialism? So the teabaggers are right to call it socialism, is what you’re saying?
‘Cause that’s NOT what I’m saying. I’m agreeing with the poster upthread who said we shouldn’t point to the current Democratic policy and call it socialism or evidence of failed socialism. If I understand what you’re saying, you’re saying that we ARE seeing socialism?
Or are you just disagreeing with me and calling me an idiot simply because I’m a libertarian, and completely ignoring my main point?
keynansays
(chuckles)
Yes, yes we do.
It’s rather sad that Idiots like that go around calling themselves Libertarians while espousing such stupidity. Perhaps we should stick to referring to these idiots as naive libertarians.
chighsays
Yes, we do. I find that rather amusing. :-)
While I have libertarian leanings, I do have a humanistic side.
Oh, I get your comment about how I somehow think you’re the only enemy, now. You thought I was blaming just the libertarians. You guys really are a party of arrogant sociopaths, aren’t you? No no, the democrats (Blue dogs and some of the less left ones) and republicans, Clinton and Bush the Lesser (Not Bush Sr, surprisingly) all got caught with their hands in the cookie jar of the latest economic mess. And you can all have a nice tall glass of shut the fuck up for continuing this charade where socialism is a boogey man. (You invoked the current US government as an example of socialism failing. That would go on Failblog if it were snappier)
But no, by no means are you the only roadblock to a better society.
Not only was the US invoked as an example of socialism failing in a way that is ignorant of modern American government, but it was also very historically ignorant as well. Socialists were involved very closely in the US union movement, the movement to end child labour, the women’s suffrage movement (yes, the Socialist Party of America supported suffrage from 1900 and had one of the most successful third party campaigns post civil war when women first won the vote, even with the candidate in prison), the organizing of tenant farmers, and the African American civil rights movement (look up A. Phillip Randolp). It was a socialist who sued to force the Congress to only be allowed to view qualifications in terms of age and citizenship and not in terms of political views (there was one third party socialist who was freely elected to the House of Representatives three times and never was allowed to serve). Also, the first major gay rights org in the US was communist linked when it was founded, in part because of Lenin’s massively pro-sex policies (yes, Vladamir Lenin legalized adultury, sodomy, consensual adult incest, and abortion, and his stated postion on sexual rights was that only rape, which harmed other citizens, was to be banned, Stalin overturned all of this). Also, a third party socialist group, the Black Panthers, had one of its founders write passionately about the rights of gay people and supported the women’s movement in 1970. Also, Socialist and Communist parties in the US pretty uniformly hate US drug policy (even the panthers, who hated drug use and drug dealing, hated US drug policy), in large part because of the intensely racist and classist way in which it operates. Even the one hard core Stalinist I know hates US drug policy and sees it as a form of class warfare.
The US has had major anti-stalinist socialist activism that has had positive results. In the US, people live in a fear of the communist strawman (who is also often depicted as gay, foreign, and/or not white) instead of actually learning history or considering different political and economic theories.
Yeah, Obamacare as passed seems more like national socialism than actual socialism. It’s government protection/promotion of private business masquerading as populist healthcare-for-all policy.
One of the reasons I’m wary of government involvement in industry is that it tends to entrench powerful interests. Not always, but often.
No, I’m going to choose not to repeat myself between posts on one thread at your demand. :)
Except, of course, all through that time period and decades after? Economic cycles.
Upturns. Downturns. Bubbles. Bailouts. None of this is new.
You can claim otherwise, but I’m not going to fall for that any more than I’d spend hours on a creationist or a climate change denier.
No, that’s rather the point that sailed over the heads of you and long-URL-person.
Libertarians are no more influential than socialists are. You can say whatever silliness you like about deregulation and say whatever given example of fiscal or financial policy is what libertarians want, but we could just as sensibly say socialist ideas were responsible for Gitmo – to spell it out for you two, not at all.
You really have that little an idea how little “deregulation” has happened, do you? You don’t know how much regulation has merely changed, and how affirmative government action to encourage the problem has happened.
To you, it’s all teh evil deregulated corporationy people in their corporationy buildings.
Actually, that was the strange guy’s question.
And yes, it was, unless you’re going to tell me that it’s all well and good in your worldview for an adult to starve, just so long as he doesn’t have a child…
…And you’re not. The only reason for the strange guy asking about $5 to save a child and not $5 to save an adult? Cheap sentiment.
The only reason you’re pretending someone could get arrested at a grocery store, say there’s a minor child in failing health unattended at his home, and that child would certainly be left to starve? Cheap sentiment.
I answered his question (not the question in your head) exactly – “should” is not something I’m willing to judge desperate people on. I don’t think you should rob me or assault me, but I could forgive you stealing a few bucks or a loaf of bread from me if you needed it. If I were a store employee, I’d prefer you had the human decency to simply demand I get out of the way while brandishing your knife (why would I want to get stabbed for that loaf?), but I might be able to forgive you if you managed not to hit anything vital. Maybe.
Because, yes, “would you stab that guy or let that child starve?” is just as worthlessly loaded as “would you let that child starve or let me take from you and others?” It’s a contrived situation, designed to ignore how else someone of whatever political view would try to solve the situation, at either a personal or broader level. And yes, I do think a genuinely deregulated economy and a negative income tax would likely be far better for anyone remotely that badly-off (to both survive and better eir life) than the current system or anything it sounds like you’d implement.
Disagree? Ehn.
No, no you don’t.
In all sincerity, with no sarcasm or snark, I’m sorry that you have so much hostility towards people who think differently from you. I don’t even think you’re being deliberately dishonest or unreasonable, just overcome at an “enemy” breaking into the two-minute hate and not following the script.
You’ve given me pause, Rutee. I won’t drop any unwanted advice on you, but you’ve inspired me to try harder to avoid getting angry at regular people who are Democrats, Republicans, or other statists like you.
(Politicians exempted.)
Take care, Rutee and the rest.
Thread’s over. Have a good day.
Oh, so I can have a nice glass of shut the fuck up for calling it socialism, but when I say ‘yeah, it’s not socialism’ I can ALSO have a nice glass of shut the fuck up?
And I’m supposed to be the sociopath?
I see you’re not familiar with Godwin’s Law. Go fucking google it.
Oy, in a thread about senses of humor….
FWIW, I typically only assume that Godwin is only invoked if the post SERIOUSLY compares someone/something to Hitler and/or NAZI policy. I was just riffing on the idea that most of the knee-jerk team-red cheerleaders in the later stages of the teabagger movement were spouting ‘socialism’ at something that was anything but.
Well speaking of national socialism in reference to “obamacare” may not be godwining, but it does reveal your complete lack of historical perspective along side your idiocy.
So you’ve got that going for you.
Are you arguing that it shows more historical perspective and less idiocy to call it regular socialism? So the teabaggers are right to call it socialism, is what you’re saying?
‘Cause that’s NOT what I’m saying. I’m agreeing with the poster upthread who said we shouldn’t point to the current Democratic policy and call it socialism or evidence of failed socialism. If I understand what you’re saying, you’re saying that we ARE seeing socialism?
Or are you just disagreeing with me and calling me an idiot simply because I’m a libertarian, and completely ignoring my main point?
(chuckles)
Yes, yes we do.
It’s rather sad that Idiots like that go around calling themselves Libertarians while espousing such stupidity. Perhaps we should stick to referring to these idiots as naive libertarians.
Yes, we do. I find that rather amusing. :-)
While I have libertarian leanings, I do have a humanistic side.