lifter6973
Banned
I don't care if you think I added anything to this thread or not. Also, you misinterpreted my post but I expect that from a backwards dumb fuck like you.
MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
Oh the irony.
- Thread starter Hughinn
- Start date
RoidmeDangerfield
Member
If you don't care then just go away and stop telling me over and over how much you don't care.
So when you say I misinterpreted your post you're saying you weren't being a whiny ass bitch? Hymph...! Could have fooled me.
lifter6973
Banned
Anyone can fool you. You are a dumb piece of shit.
Regular Joe
Member
Never insulated your liberal snowflake ass and I never said anything pro socialist. You are a troll or incapable of comprehensionAdmittedly, I did confuse your dribble with your tittied friend Regular-Joe. After all, you both excel at insults to get your point across. And now here comes
That's rich coming from the site's bottom feeder with the word "Mindless" in his profile name.
Admittedly, I did confuse Test-Subject's dribble with his bare tittied friend Regular-Joe's pro-socialist comments. There's not much distinction to be made between different users on this site when their main strength is personal attacks. They all start sounding like the same person.
Never in a million years would I have thought that my anti-socialism stance would make steroid users on a steroid site so worked up.
lifter6973
Banned
Don't forget faggot. @RoidmeDangerfield checks all the boxes. Faggot - Check; Troll - Check; Retarded Soft Cunt incapable of comprehension - Absolutely Check
MrBombastic
New Member
Those are not forms of Socialism. It’s a strawman argument. Socialism is state ownership of the means of production.
Social programs are not the same as socialism.
Test_Subject
New Member
So let me get this straight; programs or infrastructure owned, run and administered by the state and funded by public contributions are not socialist programs?
You don’t see that as “social ownership of the means of production”?
Why is it that people (not you, specifically) are quick to call Sweden, Denmark etc.socialist, because of all of their social programs, then turn around and claim that the very type of programs that they just referred to as proof of the Nordic Countries’ socialism, aren’t socialist in the USA?
It seems to me that people want to use the programs and benefit from them without having to deal with the difficulty of using the “S” word to describe them.
RoidmeDangerfield
Member
Informed educated people don't call the aforementioned Nordic European countries listed above as socialist. Just look at their history and how they were failing due to socialism. It wasn't until after they gravitated toward a free economy that they became successful. Even the prime ministers of these countries themselves will flat out tell you their countries are not socialist. I'll take the word of a leader of a country over someone hiding behind a image of a muppet anyday.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lxD-gikpMs
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdQZLOzxBEw
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lxD-gikpMs
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdQZLOzxBEw
Test_Subject
New Member
That’s funny, since your avatar seems to be an image of a muppet.
I didn’t call them socialist countries…Again, for the the fifth or sixth time, learn to read.
You seem to have about 3-4 predetermined arguments available to you, and when people don’t say what your arguments require them to say for them to work, you shoehorn their words into your arguments rather than adjusting and examining what they’re actually saying and responding based on that.
It’s severely sloppy thinking.
Last edited:
RoidmeDangerfield
Member
In another one of your post here you clearly said "Uruguay has considered itself socialist for a long time now." which is incorrect and before that you mentioned China. I admit, I extrapolated by your vague mentioning of China but I got the impression you were implying it was a success due to communism. And with the comment below it appears I'm right.
Have you ever heard of the expression "correlation does not imply causation?" With your statement above you are perfectly demonstrating your inability to legitimately deduce a cause-and-effect relationship between two events or variables solely on the basis of an observed association or correlation between them. I already pointed out why Uruguay and China became successful by providing my explanation (which is not tied to their government "socialist/communist" approach) but you clearly are incapable of grasping any of it.
You go from asking if I'm a flat earther to calling me a liberal snowflake. Even your insults have no continuity or coherency. You're tiny brain is all over the place it's just asinine. I can't tell if you're being a troll or if you're truly that stupid. For crying out loud, show some integrity and stand behind your pro socialist/communist comments. Even if they're weak insinuations on your part.
RoidmeDangerfield
Member
Social programs as in social welfare which is what some people have been claiming that this is what socialism is. It's not. Like I said before. If you consider imposed taxation on the people to maintain infrastructure then that means every country on the planet that does this is socialist. It's just absurd.
You see the word "social" and want to attach your "ism" to it and call it a day. That's not how it works.
Regular Joe
Member
Never said China was a success due to communism, only that by most measures of a country it is successful and this was in response to you saying no socialist country has been successful. To be fair by your definition no country has ever been socialist but that also makes it impossible to say it never works.
lifter6973
Banned
Have you ever heard of the Dunning-Kruger Effect? If your answer is no, google it because this describes you perfectly.
MrBombastic
New Member
If you ask someone from one of those countries, they will tell you they are a capitalist country with a large social safety net.
There’s no pure capitalism happening anywhere in the world. Most economies are “mixed economies”.
But if you’re talking about the real definition of the word, then private ownership of capital goods as a means of production disqualifies it as being defined as a socialism. It’s not a pissing contest over whether we should or shouldn’t have social programs, or how big or small they are in scope, it’s just about defining the word properly.
Test_Subject
New Member
Almost all countries are mixed economies. I can’t even think of one off the top of my head that isn’t, in fact.
Neither pure socialism nor pure capitalism are viable options. Socialism stagnates economies without capitalism and capitalism eats itself without government intervention and regulation.
That’s why people like the other guy whose whole though process can essentially be summed up as “socialism bad!” make me shake my head. It’s a simplistic and puerile way to look at things.
I don’t buy into the “social programs are not socialist” school of thought (obviously). If that were true then publicly run, single payer healthcare (socialized medicine) would also not be a socialist institution. To me, if it’s a public enterprise run for the express purpose of producing a public good, then it’s by definition socialist.
I appreciate your ability to actually converse and engage rather than just post John Stossel videos and not read what people type.
MrBombastic
New Member
Thanks, we may have a degree of disagreement on what are the best organizing principles for a society, but you articulate your position very well, and make me think.
Bork
Member
It is socialism.
Think about it this way. When you take too much test and it aromatizes into too much E2, you need to take an estrogen blocker or you get some big ol titties, water retention, high blood pressure, etc.
Too much socialism gives your government the WRONG KIND of big ol titties, high titty pressure, titty retention, titty fucking as a service, etc. Titites. Fuck. I’m so horny on this test I’m begging women to shove their sweet precious beautiful pussies in my face.
Where was I? Sorry. Yeah, you need an estrogen blocker (capitalism) to prevent having too much socialism. We’re all pretty much mixed economies now.
Daaamn, look at those fine melons on the table… I’m going to go jack off in the corner.
I disagree with the concept that public roads and such are socialism in practice.
As such things have been around since fuedal and prehistoric times. The notion itself is absurd on its face.
But it just goes to show how different people view the concept of socialism.
I'm certain that you, for example are not American. Definitely not Eastern European or South African. As I've seen similar views as yours expressed many times. Most often from upper class Canadian and western European people. American liberals are similar, but not quite as articulate.
Few non liberal American or eastern European people view socialism the same way as Cafe , and latte shop European , or American liberals.
Basically people who have never really experienced it. But have been taught in institutional settings to fawn and dote over it as the solution to mankind's problems.
On the other hand, take Eastern European , Cuban or venezuelan people, who've been under the boot of socialism, they have much less romanticism about what it is. As do Americans who've spent generations fighting the spread of socialism and communism into western jurisprudence.
Hence the irony I stated to start this thread.
It seems the people most insulated from the reality of socialism tend to praise it. While those who live it seems to oppose.
Last edited:
Another irony recently observed is the black lives matter movement in the American left.
They frame themselves akin to the civil rights movement of the 1960d.
But, In the 1960s those were mainly working class African American people marching for equal rights.
Today it's liberal white kids and sf proclaimed "intellectuals" marching for socialism under the guise of civil rights.
They frame themselves akin to the civil rights movement of the 1960d.
But, In the 1960s those were mainly working class African American people marching for equal rights.
Today it's liberal white kids and sf proclaimed "intellectuals" marching for socialism under the guise of civil rights.
RoidmeDangerfield
Member
Using a city's infrastructure to prove that socialism exists in the United States is not accurate. However, I think a better analogy for comparison purposes would be to compare American public schools to private alternatives. State run public schools would be the more "socialist" option between the two. They impose regulations on who can attend which school based on proximity
Okay, that was an odd yet funny analogy you made. The one thing you mentioned in your post was "too much socialism" that made me want to bring up an important point. When is too much...too much? It's only been quite recent that people are now calling our social welfare state a form of socialism. I don't know the timeline but people, especially Americans, were not using this term in such a carefree manner seven to ten years ago. Now you have people claiming that all these Nordic and Scandinavian countries are socialist successes. That is, flat out, incorrect. Countries like Sweden, Denmark, etc tried it and their economies were going down the drain. It wasn't until after they gravitated back to a free market that they became the economic successes we see today. It was hugely disappointing to see Bernie Sanders state in a speech how he wanted Denmark's version of socialism for the US. He, like so many others on the Left, are very misinformed.
I read an article just a few days ago on this topic. The author made what I thought was a more applicable analogy. He compared state run public schools to private schools. And if you guessed it already, public schools were the socialist option. It's funded by the state and the state designates districts and students are typically required to attend a school based on where they live (proximity). By and large, public schools are horrible options for students and their grades and lack of development are painfully evident across the country. Especially when you compare the results to students who are fortunate enough to attend private schools. So for those who want to dismiss "flat earthers" like me by saying, "Well! Roads, schools infrastructure owned by the state are all serve as proof that socialism exists!!" Just look at the quality public state runned institutions like public schools and the results they yield. Or public transit which is state run and is horribly unreliable. Would you rather own your own car or take the bus? Would you send your own kids to public or private school. I've lived in major cities throughout the country during my life. There has never been a public school I ever thought I'd like to send my kids to. They're, for the most part, shitholes.
Lastly, I just wanted to point out that I've lived in a very progressive city in the PNW. I had no idea what the locals were like until after having lived there for awhile and it was nauseating, to say the least. Radical liberals always talk about "democratic socialism." They adore BLM which is a marxist bullshit, hypocritical organization. No surprise there. But they think championing a false cause makes them look all woke and that's why they do it. They talk about the evil white patriarchy and vilify white men as casually as people talk about the weather. It's been my experience that people who promote and use the world socialism hate America and the American flag. They are obsessed with preaching their agenda and far as American culture goes, it's evil and wrong and it needs a complete revamping. They're obsessed with identity politics, intersectionality politics, race and affirmative action. They refuse to listen to opposing viewpoints and will shut you down immediately and force you out of the group. By the way, that's the basic tenet of fascism; suppression of opposition. It's dictatorial and that's why I don't want socialism of any kind nor will I ever support the use of that word. I've seen it up close and suffered through it don't want any part of it.
Extrapolating the word socialism from the word social is almost as bad as doing the same with communism/community. Hell, why not just start saying that we're communistic since we're all a community? How absurd does that sound? At the rate we're going maybe this is what we'll be disputing in another twenty years in political forms.
Okay, that was an odd yet funny analogy you made. The one thing you mentioned in your post was "too much socialism" that made me want to bring up an important point. When is too much...too much? It's only been quite recent that people are now calling our social welfare state a form of socialism. I don't know the timeline but people, especially Americans, were not using this term in such a carefree manner seven to ten years ago. Now you have people claiming that all these Nordic and Scandinavian countries are socialist successes. That is, flat out, incorrect. Countries like Sweden, Denmark, etc tried it and their economies were going down the drain. It wasn't until after they gravitated back to a free market that they became the economic successes we see today. It was hugely disappointing to see Bernie Sanders state in a speech how he wanted Denmark's version of socialism for the US. He, like so many others on the Left, are very misinformed.
I read an article just a few days ago on this topic. The author made what I thought was a more applicable analogy. He compared state run public schools to private schools. And if you guessed it already, public schools were the socialist option. It's funded by the state and the state designates districts and students are typically required to attend a school based on where they live (proximity). By and large, public schools are horrible options for students and their grades and lack of development are painfully evident across the country. Especially when you compare the results to students who are fortunate enough to attend private schools. So for those who want to dismiss "flat earthers" like me by saying, "Well! Roads, schools infrastructure owned by the state are all serve as proof that socialism exists!!" Just look at the quality public state runned institutions like public schools and the results they yield. Or public transit which is state run and is horribly unreliable. Would you rather own your own car or take the bus? Would you send your own kids to public or private school. I've lived in major cities throughout the country during my life. There has never been a public school I ever thought I'd like to send my kids to. They're, for the most part, shitholes.
Lastly, I just wanted to point out that I've lived in a very progressive city in the PNW. I had no idea what the locals were like until after having lived there for awhile and it was nauseating, to say the least. Radical liberals always talk about "democratic socialism." They adore BLM which is a marxist bullshit, hypocritical organization. No surprise there. But they think championing a false cause makes them look all woke and that's why they do it. They talk about the evil white patriarchy and vilify white men as casually as people talk about the weather. It's been my experience that people who promote and use the world socialism hate America and the American flag. They are obsessed with preaching their agenda and far as American culture goes, it's evil and wrong and it needs a complete revamping. They're obsessed with identity politics, intersectionality politics, race and affirmative action. They refuse to listen to opposing viewpoints and will shut you down immediately and force you out of the group. By the way, that's the basic tenet of fascism; suppression of opposition. It's dictatorial and that's why I don't want socialism of any kind nor will I ever support the use of that word. I've seen it up close and suffered through it don't want any part of it.
Extrapolating the word socialism from the word social is almost as bad as doing the same with communism/community. Hell, why not just start saying that we're communistic since we're all a community? How absurd does that sound? At the rate we're going maybe this is what we'll be disputing in another twenty years in political forms.
Similar threads
