Politics

[vh]

vh, your comments don't deserve a response..try harder.

phinehas, your comments are too capitalist to deserve a response. try more socialism.

well of course they don't deserve a response. i was imitating your style of argumentation.

[phinehas]

because a social safety net is socialism. last I checked corporations (are those socialist?) had their interested protected fiercely by the government and they always have since industrialization began. at the expense of not only whites but also amerindians, immigrants, and blacks. get back to me when the government protects the people, then call the united states socialist. kthx.

First sentence, is that a question, a statement..,you will have to clarify in order for it to make any sense for a response.  Again, I showed 128 trillion dollars and climbing related to Social programs...look at it compared to corporate welfare, which I never argued for..and get back to me. 

lol i may not have a PhD in economics, or be a history professor, but i highly doubt you're any more qualified than me to be arguing about anything you're saying, cause you aren't doing a very good job

I can show you the 128 trillion, I can't make you comprehend it. I believe in this case, most of the problem is on you end.

The United States is, objectively, capitalist. By that logic, you are hating a system you so wholeheartedly defend, passing it off as something you hardly understand and have never lived under (socialism), because in your mind, you see that the system in place has failed, so obviously since capitalism is a perfect, incorruptable, system that serves justice to all people based on their willingness to work and prosper for themselves, a failed system cannot be capitalist!

128 trillion and climbing of Socialist debt objectively shows that the US has taken on considerable Socialist ideas and it's objectively not shown to be a positive.  I refuted Dan's assertion...I never made an assertion that the US did not retain Capitalism.  Strawman.  I have also not gave a Utopian vision of Capitalism, that is another straw man.  If you can't argue what I say, then simply stop and not make up stuff.

[phinehas]

frankly we're all getting tired of your bullshit... try harder

Nobody is forcing you to read what I post or respond.

[atomic7732]

First sentence, is that a question, a statement..,you will have to clarify in order for it to make any sense for a response.  Again, I showed 128 trillion dollars and climbing related to Social programs...look at it compared to corporate welfare, which I never argued for..and get back to me.

your petty little social programs are not socialism, get over yourself

if anything the reason for their failure (read: the fact they cause debt) is because socialism and the premise of helping people out is 100% contrary to the capitalism and profit motive highly prevalent in society. i.e. if you aren't making money there's no point in doing it (whether it's helpful or human or not).

I can show you the 128 trillion, I can't make you comprehend it. I believe in this case, most of the problem is on you end.

guess so

128 trillion and climbing of Socialist debt objectively shows that the US has taken on considerable Socialist ideas and it's objectively not shown to be a positive.  I refuted Dan's assertion...I never made an assertion that the US did not retain Capitalism.  Strawman.  I have also not gave a Utopian vision of Capitalism, that is another straw man.  If you can't argue what I say, then simply stop and not make up stuff.

you have implied (if not stated) that you are a vehement proponent of capitalism and the free market and have expressed views stating that your primary economic belief is that people who don't work don't deserve anything and success and upward mobility is based upon the simple effort you put in. not much of a strawman tbh

[atomic7732]

frankly we're all getting tired of your bullshit... try harder

Nobody is forcing you to read what I post or respond.

no, i choose to respond because your arguments are pretty funny yet you keep responding with the same thing and the reiteration that you are right and that we are blind to the facts

so i basically just said try harder because you aren't trying very hard and it was partly the reasoning for why vh was responding as he did

[phinehas]

your petty little social programs are not socialism,

  128 trillion dollars is petty?  Please tell me another country that has a higher social program debt, say per capita.  Please do, because that would only show more evidence of why Socialism is a failure and has to be artificially propped up.

if anything the reason for their failure....

The rest simply makes no sense at all.

you have implied (if not stated) that you are a vehement proponent of capitalism and the free market and have expressed views stating that your primary economic belief is that people who don't work don't deserve anything and success and upward mobility is based upon the simple effort you put in. not much of a strawman tbh

1. wrong, I have said it's the best available system to bring the most people out of poverty and ethically give people control over their own destinies and retain the highest level of liberty.  I never implied it was perfect but that compared to other systems, Socialism, Communism and Despotism...it exponentially better on every level and more sustainable.  The problem with Capitalist societies has been too many people have allowed politicians to take on Socialistic ideas for political votes.  Being Santa Clause to people is looked upon more favorably by the masses than telling them they need to work in order to succeed.  People that actually can't work should be given charity by their family and concentric circles outward through the local community, groups and churches before ever reaching the State government and never reaching the Federal government.  People that can work but choose not to due to being lazy or drug users, etc.  People that want to give to them voluntarily can choose to do so but not via taxes.  Period.

Success and upward mobility are in fact determined mostly by effort, having a family consisting of a Father and Mother in the home statistically and from common sense also is a big factor.  Not taking drugs and abusing alcohol are also a factor...I could go on...point being, very few people are actually oppressed in America and have no ability to get out of poverty or stay out of it.

So again, stop making up strawmen about my positions.

[Dan Dixon]

Does the United States have $128 trillion in unfunded liabilities?

No.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2013/10/23/does-the-united-states-have-128-trillion-in-unfunded-liabilities/

[atomic7732]

your petty little social programs are not socialism,

  128 trillion dollars is petty?  Please tell me another country that has a higher social program debt, say per capita.  Please do, because that would only show more evidence of why Socialism is a failure and has to be artificially propped up.

you missed the point, let's put it in simpler terms for you:

social programs are not socialism

1. wrong, I have said it's the best available system to bring the most people out of poverty and ethically give people control over their own destinies and retain the highest level of liberty.  I never implied it was perfect but that compared to other systems, Socialism, Communism and Despotism...it exponentially better on every level and more sustainable.

You can't seem to prove this though, no matter how hard you try, because of your complete lack of understanding everything you're attempting to argue against.

The problem with Capitalist societies has been too many people have allowed politicians to take on Socialistic ideas for political votes.

you're funny, you're just using so called "socialist ideas" as a scapegoat for the shortcomings of capitalism

[phinehas]

Does the United States have $128 trillion in unfunded liabilities?

No.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2013/10/23/does-the-united-states-have-128-trillion-in-unfunded-liabilities/

Nice try Dan.  If you look at your article, it states from it's source last year, Social Security being 23.1 trillion while the debt clock has it lower at 16.98 trillion right now.  The source ONLY speaks of SS.  LOL. Ba BAM! Whereas the debt clock is citing 128 trillion based on OASDI, Prescription Drug and Medicare.


Also, back in 2009 the Dallas Federal Reserve President gives the figure of 99.2 trillion and the debt clock is stating it's sources are the federal reserve.

https://www.dallasfed.org/news/speeches/fisher/2008/fs080528.cfm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/5379285/China-warns-Federal-Reserve-over-printing-money.html

So given 5 years and the addition of Obamacare, 128 trillion still seems legit.

Plus this refutes your "low" number as well.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/10/three-pinnochios-for-glenn-kessler.php

[Dan Dixon]

So, in your mind, is it possible for a government to spend money and it not be socialism?

And do you also think privatized prisons are a good idea?

[atomic7732]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-OcHUzTbsU

this is a pretty good video

[Bla]

Happy International Workers' Day. This was from Copenhagen, the weather was very nice (after getting a slight sunburn you could say it was literally reddening to be there).

Didn't have enough arms to take photos/vids of the noise protest against the prime minister's speech, unfortunately, but I red that she cut 13 minutes out of 20 minutes off her speech, kol.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ij1MYrTni8

Her speech attempt can be seen in the video below the bottom of this article.
http://nyhederne.tv2.dk/politik/2014-05-01-thorning-derfor-holdt-jeg-en-kortere-tale

The top video in this article:
http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Politik/2014/05/01/153858.htm

In this one I can hear my own airhorn from 0:34 to 0:52 kol, it had a high pitch and was periodic (because it used hand-compression).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-CsHCgMqk4

This video is also pretty fun to watch:
http://ekstrabladet.dk/nyheder/politik/danskpolitik/article2273604.ece

Some angry presumably social democrat went over to me, grabbing my arms and trying to steal my ear protection, whistle and horn periodically, kol. Another demonstrant kindly helped me to get him to stop so for most of the speech it worked. He can cry me a river until he steps up to the prime minister and tells her to listen to the people. The noise level was measured at 100 decibel by reports from the newspaper Politiken, and there were reports of a dad with his child sitting on his shoulders who began to hit a demonstrant until the police stopped him. Kol.

[Hati Hroovitnisson]

Just a question; whats wrong with socialism? The government works for the people. If you are hungry it should feed you, if you are destitute it should house you. If you are lonely it should send someone around your house to show you a good time. It shouldn't provide the world but it should establish a minimum standard of living for even the ungrateful among us.

[Xriqxa]

Agreed.

[Cosmos]

Just a question; whats wrong with socialism? The government works for the people. If you are hungry it should feed you, if you are destitute it should house you. If you are lonely it should send someone around your house to show you a good time. It shouldn't provide the world but it should establish a minimum standard of living for even the ungrateful among us.

Republican Jesus objects.

[Hati Hroovitnisson]

The republican position assumes that being a product of a civilization doesn't already make you dependent. When they say we stand on the shoulders of giants its in every facet of our lives, from language to our current worldview, ideas, education living standard, even your clothes are a product of multiple people you are dependent on.

Republicans should strip off completely naked and wander out into the countryside for a week or two to figure out what true independence is like. Accepting what it means to be in a civilization means accepting small doses of socialism and admitting you're dependent on others and should probably cooperate with them. The argument I've read so far is misguided.

Here's another turn of phrase for the hardcore capitalists here: "anything in overdose is a poison". You're supposed to pick and choose what facets of socialism and capitalism work best for what sections of society, not drown society in an extreme version of either. Imagine a capitalist fire department or a socialist oil company. A fire department that favors the highest bidder is as useless as an oil company that can't run in the business world. All this "socialism is bad" or "capitalism is good" stuff is nonsense. The benefits come about in terms of what needs to come out of it. Its this scary concept called a "grey area".

[Darvince]

similarly an unregulated oil company will run well but get so big that it must be supported to keep an economic depression from occuring

[Hati Hroovitnisson]

similarly an unregulated oil company will run well but get so big that it must be supported to keep an economic depression from occuring

I say let the depression happen. The things that are over bloated and inefficient tend to get routed in a depression, afterward what generally happens is we find things have centralized and money has freed up at the end of a bust because things have become more efficient from routing the redundancies. If an oil company is so large it can ruin our economy then it is too big for the economy and needs to be removed or drastically downsized.

[Bla]

You're supposed to pick and choose what facets of socialism and capitalism work best for what sections of society, not drown society in an extreme version of either. Imagine a capitalist fire department or a socialist oil company. A fire department that favors the highest bidder is as useless as an oil company that can't run in the business world.

Assuming you by socialist oil company mean a state-owned one, I think Statoil would disagree.

If an oil company is so large it can ruin our economy then it is too big for the economy and needs to be removed or drastically downsized.

But splitting up all those large businesses would mean losing the advantage of economies of scale which means inefficiency... Then again, monopolies also drift towards inefficiency in capitalism due to lack of competition to balance the profit motive...
The solution to this should be to nationalize and merge the companies and exploit the economies of scale on the biggest possible level and have people cooperate rather than compete to fulfill society's needs.

[Xriqxa]

The republican position assumes that being a product of a civilization doesn't already make you dependent. When they say we stand on the shoulders of giants its in every facet of our lives, from language to our current worldview, ideas, education living standard, even your clothes are a product of multiple people you are dependent on.

Republicans should strip off completely naked and wander out into the countryside for a week or two to figure out what true independence is like. Accepting what it means to be in a civilization means accepting small doses of socialism and admitting you're dependent on others and should probably cooperate with them. The argument I've read so far is misguided.

Here's another turn of phrase for the hardcore capitalists here: "anything in overdose is a poison". You're supposed to pick and choose what facets of socialism and capitalism work best for what sections of society, not drown society in an extreme version of either. Imagine a capitalist fire department or a socialist oil company. A fire department that favors the highest bidder is as useless as an oil company that can't run in the business world. All this "socialism is bad" or "capitalism is good" stuff is nonsense. The benefits come about in terms of what needs to come out of it. Its this scary concept called a "grey area".

you're taking everything too seriously.

[Bla]

I also overheard a conversation at college about this new, interesting book:
http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/en/capital21c2

It has a lot of interesting datasets here:
http://www.quandl.com/PIKETTY?page=1

[Dan Dixon]

They talk about Thomas Piketty's book, Capital in this video:
http://billmoyers.com/video/#71448

[Bla]

Fascists tried a demo at the parlament on Saturday, lol. Antifascists gathered to boo at them and shout "no nazis in our streets". Their demo lasted 10 minutes before the police drove them away, kol.

In return, you can barely hear them shout "Denmark for Danes" "foreigners out" and calling the antifascists "gay asses". Enjoy watching their stupidity.

Later that day, 21 right wing radicals were arrested at a train station. Ha.

From 2:41

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzDZTGlVx2I&t=2m41s

Also lolwut, how is this going to work??
(And notice his necklace - a popular nazi iron cross)

[matty406]

Well to be honest, it's the iron cross, used in Germany since it was Purssia.
But yeah it does have Nazi connotations, not as strongly as the Swastika though imo.

[smjjames]

Well to be honest, it's the iron cross, used in Germany since it was Purssia.
But yeah it does have Nazi connotations, not as strongly as the Swastika though imo.

Yeah, I just associate it with WWI Germany or just Germany in general.

[Bla]

You're correct, it is, yes, but I think its meaning is a bit different to the far right, here it is a popular symbol they like to mix with various death-worshiping graphics, just try searching up on iron cross shirts and you'll get an idea of what kind of people run around wearing that.

Anyway, you should watch this, it's hilarious.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erYpXzE9Pxs

[atomic7732]

Blaland is one of our best and strongest allies, and they punch above their weight.

[Bla]

A recent opinion poll from May made by Gallup for the conservative newspaper Berlingske in Denmark asked 1,082 representatively chosen people above 18 years how much they agreed with the statement "I happily pay my taxes to the Danish society"

38% answered they completely agreed
50% answered they partially agreed
8% answered they partially disagreed
3% answered they completely disagreed
1% didn't know

Among people voting for Unity List, Socialist People's Party, Social Democrats and Radical Left:
59% completely agreed
38% partially agreed
2% partially disagreed
1% completely disagreed

Among people voting for Left, Conservative People's Party, Liberal Alliance and Danish People's Party:
24% completely agreed
58% partially agreed
12% partially disagreed
6% completely disagreed

The chosen main reason for agreeing were:
47%: "I expect to gain free access to doctors, hospitals, education and welfare"
23%: "Everyone should have equal access to welfare"
13%: "I support the principle that the richest people should give the most to society"
13%: "I feel that I get something myself for paying taxes"
3%: None of the above/don't know

The chosen main reasons for not agreeing were:
31%: "I don't want to pay welfare for people who don't contribute economically to society"
29%: "My taxes end up in bureaucracy and administration anyway"
20%: "I feel that I get punished for doing some extra work"
3%: "I think so many people already try to pay as little tax as possible that I won't make any difference"
13%: None of the above
4%: Don't know

Source: http://www.b.dk/nationalt/danskerne-betaler-med-glaede-deres-skat

Some more surveys:

2008: Zapera asked about 1,000 people whether they considered themselves socialists or not. 27% answered yes.
2013: YouGov asked about 1,000 people whether they considered themselves socialists or not. 29% answered yes, 46% answered no, and 25% had no opinion to the question.
(No definition of socialism was given in either of the surveys, so it was only whether they considered themselves to be it)
2014: Wilke asks 955 representatively selected people "Do you think that a socialist society would be better at securing welfare and work than the current capitalist society?"
23.0% answered yes, 51.3% answered no, 23.9% were unsure.
32.6% of people between 18 and 29 year old answered yes, while 12.7% of people above 70 years answered yes.

[vh]

partially vs totally agreeing always confuses me. because do you mean the dictionary definition of totally, meaning totally totally? or perhaps i should interpret it as most people do, which is mostly totally?

[Bla]

Kol... CIA makes propaganda toy doll of Osama Bin Laden.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/cia-hatched-plan-to-make-demon-toy-to-counter-bin-laden-influence/2014/06/19/cb3d571c-f0d0-11e3-914c-1fbd0614e2d4_story.html?Post+generic=%3Ftid%3Dsm_twitter_washingtonpost