Capitalist versus Socialists Video
Previous 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 13 Next
Zipperfish @ Mon Sep 28, 2009 1:46 pm
Proculation Proculation:
$1:
But when you speak in sentence jingoistic slogans, it is very difficult to conextualize one meaning from another.
I don't know what "jingoistic" means so if you could explain.
As for the "natural nature" of capitalism, maybe I was not clear enough. I mean that trade is natural to human since we cannot produce everything we need.
Jingoistic basically means "one-liners devoid of any context or nuance." for example:
$1:
Capitalism is natural. That's what distinguishes us from animal.
I'd agree that capitlaism is natural. Indeed teh words "ecology" and "economy" come from the same root. Both are concerned with the optimal allocation of scarce resources. In both, competition is the engine of survival. In both, the death of the weak strengthens the herd.
Indeed, in many ways, capitalism is bloodless Darwinism.
But natural does not always mean beneficial. Indeed, in civil society we deliberately suppress many of our more primitive natural urges because they have been shown to be detrimental to a fucntioning civilization.
bootlegga @ Mon Sep 28, 2009 2:01 pm
Thanos Thanos:
Did Hannity ever get around to condemning the implied violence against the President by tea-baggers toting firearms at this summer's health-care protests? Or any of the "Go back to Kenya, Nigger!" signs? Or any of the vile "Obama = Hitler" rhetoric that other commentators on his own network have been recklessly promulgating?
Just asking for laughs. I already know what the real answer is.
I don't agree with everything the two girls in the video were saying but at least they stood up to the bully Hannity and didn't let him corner them the way he usually does to unprepared guests. Nice to see some folks fight back every once in a while.
Just asking for laughs. I already know what the real answer is.
I don't agree with everything the two girls in the video were saying but at least they stood up to the bully Hannity and didn't let him corner them the way he usually does to unprepared guests. Nice to see some folks fight back every once in a while.
Thanos Thanos:
N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:
Oh, and I couldn't let this one pass...
Thanos Thanos:
Or any of the vile "Obama = Hitler" rhetoric
Oh, yadda yadda yadda. "Well, THEY did it first!", is a stupid defense of anything, at least to anyone who managed to graduate from Grade 9. There probably isn't a single person here (excepting choads like Kenmore of course), and damn few out in the real world, who would ever defend the dopey irresponsibility of the dumb ass counter-culture lefties who started screaming "fascist!" or "Nazi!" at conservatives and traditionalists back in the 1960's, and who still haven't stopped doing it today. It was stupid, it was reckless and, through inane and pointless overuse, it took away the true horror that every responsible person should feel every time those words are spoken. So the lefties who use it this way should all grow a damn brain and stop it or go collectively fuck themselves if they keep doing it? Damn straight. I couldn't agree more than the 100% I already feel about this.
Here's the greater point, though, that all you knee-jerk Obamaphobes are completely missing. If you rightly revile the way the leftists behaved back then, and still unfortunately behave today, then the last thing any conservatives should do is start behaving the same way. Bush was not a facist or Nazi. Obama is not a facist, Nazi, or Communist, and he dosen't want to euthanize everyone's grandma when they get too old, too expensive to look after, or just too darn annoying to bother to pay any attention to anymore. This isn't debate or reasonable disagreement, it's juvenile histrionics and it's stupid immature bald-faced lying. If anyone who calls themselves a conservative wants to demonstrate that they're the genuine article, then show it by NOT acting in the same manner that the opposition does. If some dickweed leftist throws rocks at police during a WTO or G8 riot, then don't prove that you're as stupid and rotten as they are by showing up to a protest over fucking HEALTH CARE carrying an assault rifle. Or handing out pamphlets that say all queers & kikes and spics & darkies ought to be killed off just to make Jeebus happy. Or signs calling the President of the United States a nigger. Or saying that the man, no matter how much you may dislike him, is anywhere in the same league as the genocidal monsters of the past. In other words, act rationally, act like an adult, and do not behave like some prehistoric, sub-level, low-IQ idiot who's been stirred up beyond all reason by the professional propagandists who are deliberately trying to stoke up a good ol' boys lynch mob against their own government.
To paraphrase Shepard Smith, who seems to be the only one left at FOX who hasn't completely lost his goddamn mind, WE'RE conservatives and WE don't fucking behave this way. It's not that difficult a concept to understand.
Great posts.
bootlegga @ Mon Sep 28, 2009 2:04 pm
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
Me--I'm pretty much a liberal. Heck, damn near libertarian/anarchist some days, so I have no qualms at all saying that a good percentage of those tea party dudes are murderous retards, whereas most of the lefties protesting are just college kids who have yet to be smacked in the head with the bat of reality.
bootlegga @ Mon Sep 28, 2009 2:13 pm
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
Right now, You hear all the right-wingers now bitching about Obama's spending and accusing him of being a socailist. Where were all those folks when Bush was dropping tens of millions of taxpayers wealth PER DAY on the Iraq debacle? Or creating huge new bureacracies like the Department of Homeland Security? No--despite the fact that money to fund these was confiscated from private hands to finance an inherently inefficient government programs seems to have eluded the ever-dim neocons.
Good point.
faile @ Mon Sep 28, 2009 3:04 pm
bootlegga bootlegga:
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
Right now, You hear all the right-wingers now bitching about Obama's spending and accusing him of being a socailist. Where were all those folks when Bush was dropping tens of millions of taxpayers wealth PER DAY on the Iraq debacle? Or creating huge new bureacracies like the Department of Homeland Security? No--despite the fact that money to fund these was confiscated from private hands to finance an inherently inefficient government programs seems to have eluded the ever-dim neocons.
Good point.
Not really.
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/
Zipperfish @ Mon Sep 28, 2009 3:58 pm
faile faile:
Your site actually proves my point. It says:
President Bush expanded the federal budget by a historic $700 billion through 2008
President Bush began a string of expensive financial bailouts
President Bush presided over a $2.5 trillion increase in the public debt through 2008.
So the question stands: where were all these people purportedly concerned about government spending during the Bush era, which racked up record debt and government spending unseen since WWII?
Apollo @ Mon Sep 28, 2009 4:13 pm
$1:
That a good point despite the fact that Cubians can expect equal or better health care than Americans for pennies on the dollar.
When is the last time that a poor American could afford life saving surgury to save their life...medical breakthroughs are no good if the average person can't afford them.
When is the last time that a poor American could afford life saving surgury to save their life...medical breakthroughs are no good if the average person can't afford them.
Equal or better health care? They don't even have toilet paper in Cuba these days. I have vacationed to Cuba several times. They live in deplorable conditions.
The last time a poor American could afford life saving surgery is every day in the US. State sponsored hospitals are just as good as any Canadian hospital. By law, no hospital can turn away a patient that needs immediate care. Insurance or no insurance.
faile @ Tue Sep 29, 2009 8:42 am
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
faile faile:
Your site actually proves my point. It says:
President Bush expanded the federal budget by a historic $700 billion through 2008
President Bush began a string of expensive financial bailouts
President Bush presided over a $2.5 trillion increase in the public debt through 2008.
So the question stands: where were all these people purportedly concerned about government spending during the Bush era, which racked up record debt and government spending unseen since WWII?
He was already halfway out the door when congress really got out of control with the bailouts, etc last fall. "During the Bush era?" Please.
$1:
President Bush presided over a $2.5 trillion increase in the public debt through 2008.
Great 2.5 trillion over eight years is still significantly less momentum than 1.8 over one year. Significant enough for the complacent people to suddenly stand up and notice. If I'm on a bus headed toward a brick wall at 20km/hr I'm a little less nervous than when it picks up and starts going 100km/hr
Proculation @ Tue Sep 29, 2009 8:59 am
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
Proculation Proculation:
$1:
But when you speak in sentence jingoistic slogans, it is very difficult to conextualize one meaning from another.
I don't know what "jingoistic" means so if you could explain.
As for the "natural nature" of capitalism, maybe I was not clear enough. I mean that trade is natural to human since we cannot produce everything we need.
Jingoistic basically means "one-liners devoid of any context or nuance." for example:
$1:
Capitalism is natural. That's what distinguishes us from animal.
I'd agree that capitlaism is natural. Indeed teh words "ecology" and "economy" come from the same root. Both are concerned with the optimal allocation of scarce resources. In both, competition is the engine of survival. In both, the death of the weak strengthens the herd.
Indeed, in many ways, capitalism is bloodless Darwinism.
But natural does not always mean beneficial. Indeed, in civil society we deliberately suppress many of our more primitive natural urges because they have been shown to be detrimental to a fucntioning civilization.
I understand you don't know what one basic concept of trade, comparative advantage, is.
faile @ Tue Sep 29, 2009 9:14 am
Proculation Proculation:
I understand you don't know what one basic concept of trade, comparative advantage, is.
Heh. Liberal types tend to think everything is zero-sum. They aren't. And that's why a "trade deficit" doesn't matter.
Zipperfish @ Tue Sep 29, 2009 12:38 pm
faile faile:
He was already halfway out the door when congress really got out of control with the bailouts, etc last fall. "During the Bush era?" Please.
Hey, I'm just quoting from the website you provided. I'm no fan of taking trillions of dollars from taxpaying Americans and Canadians and funneling it to the banks and other huge corporations either, don't get me wrong. I think it's complete BS.
But let's not pretend this ball wasn't already rolling under Bush, who racked up his own record deficits and made the government much bigger and much more intrusive into the lives of citizens.
Parking this solely at Obama's door is just the same old partisan drivel.
Zipperfish @ Tue Sep 29, 2009 12:49 pm
Proculation Proculation:
Look, if you want a serious discussion of the matter, fine, but as it is, you're just posting silly one liners.
Zipperfish @ Tue Sep 29, 2009 12:52 pm
faile faile:
Proculation Proculation:
I understand you don't know what one basic concept of trade, comparative advantage, is.
Heh. Liberal types tend to think everything is zero-sum. They aren't. And that's why a "trade deficit" doesn't matter.
When did I ever even mention "trade deficit"? Try to keep up.
faile @ Tue Sep 29, 2009 1:03 pm
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
faile faile:
Proculation Proculation:
I understand you don't know what one basic concept of trade, comparative advantage, is.
Heh. Liberal types tend to think everything is zero-sum. They aren't. And that's why a "trade deficit" doesn't matter.
When did I ever even mention "trade deficit"? Try to keep up.
When did I say I was referring to you in that comment. I'm a thread hijacker. And I'm not very good at it mkay?
Zipperfish @ Tue Sep 29, 2009 1:27 pm
faile faile:
When did I say I was referring to you in that comment. I'm a thread hijacker. And I'm not very good at it mkay?
10-4!
Previous 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 13 Next