Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Soda for Food StampsFollow

#502 Feb 10 2013 at 11:03 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,491 posts
Or maybe I should just stick with bonds

Passively managed SP500 Index fund with 100% of assets, then take a nap for 30 years. Every other "strategy" is useless unless you're investing $1M+.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#503 Feb 11 2013 at 9:26 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
12,055 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
So what? It wasn't random chance that one succeeds and the other does not.

Yes, you stupid *******, that's *precisely* what it is.


Yeah. It kinda is. You've been spouting this narrative for as long as you've been posting here.


I'm sure that's true. The kids call it "reality".


Is it time to play annecdote theatre?

"When Takashi Hashiyama, CEO of a Japanese television equipment manufacturer, decided to auction off the collection of impressionist paintings owned by his corporation, including works by Cézanne, Picasso, and van Gogh, he contacted two leading auction houses, Christie's International and Sotheby's Holdings. Hashiyama asked the firms to decide between themselves who would hold the auction, which included Cézanne's Large Trees Under the Jas de Bouffan, worth $12–16 million. The houses were unable to reach a decision. Hashiyama told the two firms to play rock-paper-scissors to decide who would get the rights to the auction. Christie's won the match and sold the $20 million collection, with millions of dollars of commission for the auction house."

Decision making ability like this is how you make it in the CEO world.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#504gbaji, Posted: Feb 11 2013 at 5:04 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Honestly? These are the kinds of conclusions and complaints made when people don't understand how wealth works. It doesn't matter who owns most of the wealth in our economy. What matters is how it's used. The real question you have to ask yourself (and the real ideological conflict here) is whether you think the government is better at utilizing that wealth, or the people are. Which will result in more jobs, faster advancement of technology, better/safer products, rising standards of living, etc.
#505 Feb 11 2013 at 8:02 PM Rating: Good
5 posts
I don't think that being on welfare means you should be restricted on what kinds of foods you choose to eat. There's bigger problems with welfare than people buying too much soda with. I'd rather the government focus on making sure people who truly need welfare are getting it, and the people who don't need it, aren't.

Driftwood wrote:
There is nothing wrong with making money. The entire point of the capitalist system is to make money and maximize profit. However, no one, for any reason whatsoever, needs to be making millions of dollars per year. No one should be making that much money. That's the problem with modern capitalism. It's stopped being a matter of making money and living better, and more a matter of making as much money as possible, even if it's a completely ridiculous amount that no one could possibly ever need. Even within the boundaries of capitalism, there's a such thing as "good enough". I call myself a capitalist, but that doesn't mean that I wouldn't be fine making even as little as 50k per year. 50k is more than enough to live quite comfortably unless one thinks living comfortably requires expensive everything. If a company makes tens of billions of dollars per year, they do not need to make cutbacks, they do not need to outsource. If a person makes, say, 200k per year, they do not need to start whining about paying taxes, or acting like they're poor. They're doing magnificently well as is. Why is there this huge problem with giving a little back to the consumer, and the worker, without whom, the company, and it's higher-ups, would be bust?



This is just wrong. Who gets to decide how much money is enough to make per year? Who decides what's "good enough" or "comfortably"?

Your argument falls apart when you look at it from a different scale. A starving person in Africa could tell you that 50k/year is way too much money for one person to have and you can live quite "comfortably" with far less. You don't "need" that much money. The rich don't need yachts? You don't need cable TV. The rich don't need a $200 haircut? You don't need coffee from Starbucks.

You're right about someone making 200k/year being silly for acting like they're poor, but they have every **** right to whine about having to pay higher taxes. It's still more money out of their pocket. Again, you seem to lack the proper perspective on this. If they put in a toll booth at the end of your driveway and charge you 25 cents a day, do you rescind the right to whine about it because you can afford to live without it?

And what does the company have to "give back", exactly? They're already giving back. To the consumer, they give back the product or service the consumer wanted. To the worker, they give back wages in exchange for their labor. Wages the worker freely agreed to before starting any work. If they aren't satisfied with the wages they receive for their labor, they can work at another company. If their life circumstances make it so that their options are limited, why is the company to blame?

If you go to a hot dog stand and the guy is willing to sell you a hot dog for $2, do you say "No, no good sir! Even though you're willing to exchange me a hot dog for $2 as opposed to $3 or $4 due to the status of the market, I'm going to voluntarily give you more money than you can get from anyone else just because I should give back and not exploit the circumstances that have led to a $2 hot dog price"

It's the same with workers. Due to whatever circumstances in the job market, they're able to get X wages. Much like the circumstances of the local hot dog market determine what price the vendor is able to sell you a hot dog for, the circumstances of the local job market determine what price a worker is able to "sell" their labor.

Are you honestly saying you're a bad guy for not giving him more than fair market value for his hot dog? If not, then why is a company bad for not giving a worker more than fair market value for their labor?



Edited, Feb 11th 2013 9:40pm by SansDeity
____________________________
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved. If you show me that, say, homeopathy works, then I will change my mind. I'll spin on a f***ing dime. I'll be embarrassed as ****, but I will run through the streets yelling 'It's a miracle! Take physics and bin it! Water has memory! And while it's memory of a long lost drop of onion juice seems infinite, it somehow forgets all the poo it's had in it! '"
--Tim Minchin
#506 Feb 11 2013 at 8:27 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Is it time to play annecdote theatre?

"When Takashi Hashiyama, CEO of a Japanese television equipment manufacturer, decided to auction off the collection of impressionist paintings owned by his corporation, including works by Cézanne, Picasso, and van Gogh, he contacted two leading auction houses, Christie's International and Sotheby's Holdings. Hashiyama asked the firms to decide between themselves who would hold the auction, which included Cézanne's Large Trees Under the Jas de Bouffan, worth $12–16 million. The houses were unable to reach a decision. Hashiyama told the two firms to play rock-paper-scissors to decide who would get the rights to the auction. Christie's won the match and sold the $20 million collection, with millions of dollars of commission for the auction house."

Decision making ability like this is how you make it in the CEO world.


Yes. He made the determination that it wouldn't matter which auction house managed this, so rather than expend significant resources and money on something which he didn't think would matter, he decided to effectively flip a coin. The decision he made wasn't random though. You can bet that if he thought that he'd get a better price with one auction house versus another that he'd have chosen that house. The decision was that this wasn't worth spending time and money on in the first place. And that was almost certainly the right decision and saved his company money.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#507 Feb 11 2013 at 8:45 PM Rating: Excellent
***
1,877 posts
On a slightly amusing note I got approved for food stamps today. So now I not only can I afford to eat more than 1.5 meals a day I can buy the soda Gbaji so despises me for being able to purchase. Sounds like a win/ win to me.Smiley: grin
____________________________
#swaggerjacker
#508 Feb 11 2013 at 9:09 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
Oh. I guess I struck a nerve by pointing out that two things that are nearly identical are nearly identical. Just keep those liberal blinders on and don't look at the man behind the curtain. Wouldn't want to grasp that socialism and fascism are competing ideologies, not opposing ones.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#509 Feb 11 2013 at 9:11 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Oh. I guess I struck a nerve by pointing out that two things that are nearly identical are nearly identical. Just keep those liberal blinders on and don't look at the man behind the curtain.

MonxDot? Dat you?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#510 Feb 11 2013 at 9:18 PM Rating: Excellent
gbaji wrote:
Wouldn't want to grasp that socialism and fascism are competing ideologies, not opposing ones.
Right.
As opposed to identical ideologies, which is what you claimed.




Edited, Feb 11th 2013 8:19pm by Bijou
____________________________
Allegory wrote:
Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.
#511gbaji, Posted: Feb 11 2013 at 9:41 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Only if you leave off the words "nearly" and "more or less" and "in this regard (to the relationship with free markets)". But hey! No need to pay attention to those modifiers when they get in the way of a good zinger.
#512 Feb 11 2013 at 11:45 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Gbaji's notions on fascism read like someone really, really trying too hard. Political ideologies are not purely economic ideologies yet Gbaji's argument rests on the (misguided) notion that fascism and socialism are both "opposed to capitalism" so they must be the same thing, or "close enough" anyway.

Granted, both are opposed to unfettered capitalism but so is pretty much every political ideology unless you're Ayn Rand or buying a plot in Glen Becks' Libertarian theme park. To say that (for instance) a government mandate on worker safety conditions is opposed to capitalism -- which it is -- therefore it's socialism so that means it's fascism and so let's just call it communism because they're all "opposed to capitalism" is just ridiculous.

Of course the whole "opposed to capitalism" bit is a red herring anyway. When people speak negatively in broad terms regarding fascism, it's rarely "Oh my, the trains are government owned!". It's about the authoritarian aspects: the xenophobia, militarism (and deification of the soldier), nationalism/jingoism, policing powers, suppression of free thought, etc. You can find plenty examples of these things in politics all over the economic spectrum. But the lack of these things is why no one is pointing to Canada or Sweden and saying "OMG that's just like fascism! Peas in a pod!!" -- unless you're some idiotic conservative hack trying his damnest to sound smart.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#513 Feb 11 2013 at 11:54 PM Rating: Excellent
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Wouldn't want to grasp that socialism and fascism are competing ideologies, not opposing ones.
Right.
As opposed to identical ideologies, which is what you claimed.
Only if you leave off the words "nearly" and "more or less"
gbaji wrote:
Fascism *is* Socialism.
I'm kinda blind. Please point out the words "nearly" and "more or less" in that quote. Don't blather on about the rest of you giberish in the following wall'o'text. That is a statement, you made it, no modifiers.

LERN2ENGLISH
____________________________
Allegory wrote:
Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.
#514 Feb 12 2013 at 12:24 AM Rating: Excellent
******
44,314 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Gbaji's notions on (anything) read like someone really, really trying too hard.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#515 Feb 12 2013 at 6:07 AM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,289 posts
Today my husband has a phone interview to see if we can get food stamps, emergency Medicaid and any other services because he got a separation notice from his job (wonderful) so now he also has no insurance. I doubt we'll buy much soda with our food stamps though. But potato chips...
#516 Feb 12 2013 at 6:10 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,491 posts
These are the kinds of conclusions and complaints made when people don't understand how wealth works,

Minor punctuation quibble. The comma at the end of this should be a colon.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#517 Feb 12 2013 at 7:43 AM Rating: Excellent
******
21,718 posts
You guys are good, really. Every time you post one of Gbaji's random quotes and comment on it, I actually begin to wonder where he actually posted it. I spent about 5 seconds looking for the line Smash quoted before reminding myself I just don't give a ****, but shame on me for being tempted in the first place.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#518 Feb 12 2013 at 7:53 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,491 posts
Today my husband has a phone interview to see if we can get food stamps, emergency Medicaid and any other services because he got a separation notice from his job (wonderful) so now he also has no insurance

(I don't know enough to really judge but) Sounds like a fairly trivial SSI claim. http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10029.html

There are (lots) of lawyers who specialize in it.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#519 Feb 12 2013 at 8:14 AM Rating: Decent
******
21,718 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Today my husband has a phone interview to see if we can get food stamps, emergency Medicaid and any other services because he got a separation notice from his job (wonderful) so now he also has no insurance

(I don't know enough to really judge but) Sounds like a fairly trivial SSI claim. http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10029.html

There are (lots) of lawyers who specialize in it.


This may be true, but it really depends on how long he'll be considered disabled. SSI claims typically take 6 months or more to process. Back in Jan. of 2012, I applied for SSI for my now 18 year old sister who has epilepsy and a related congitive disability. It was 4 months before the paperwork was even pushed through, and another 4 months of doctor appointments and even a psychological review before she was finally approved in August. Having gone through all that, she still gets a mere $490 a month (the max benefit, at least for her), so it's a temporary solution until we can get her a job meshes with her particular set of disabilities.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#520 Feb 12 2013 at 9:29 AM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,491 posts

This may be true, but it really depends on how long he'll be considered disabled. SSI claims typically take 6 months or more to process. Back in Jan. of 2012, I applied for SSI for my now 18 year old sister who has epilepsy and a related congitive disability. It was 4 months before the paperwork was even pushed through, and another 4 months of doctor appointments and even a psychological review before she was finally approved in August. Having gone through all that, she still gets a mere $490 a month (the max benefit, at least for her), so it's a temporary solution until we can get her a job meshes with her particular set of disabilities.


His benefit would likely be higher where he was a working adult for a few decades. My wife, the lovely and talented Nexa, can probably help you with your sister finding work thing. She's the Operations Manager of an institute that studies exactly that. You should PM her.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#521 Feb 12 2013 at 11:08 AM Rating: Good
**
585 posts
Smasharoo wrote:

This may be true, but it really depends on how long he'll be considered disabled. SSI claims typically take 6 months or more to process. Back in Jan. of 2012, I applied for SSI for my now 18 year old sister who has epilepsy and a related congitive disability. It was 4 months before the paperwork was even pushed through, and another 4 months of doctor appointments and even a psychological review before she was finally approved in August. Having gone through all that, she still gets a mere $490 a month (the max benefit, at least for her), so it's a temporary solution until we can get her a job meshes with her particular set of disabilities.


His benefit would likely be higher where he was a working adult for a few decades. My wife, the lovely and talented Nexa, can probably help you with your sister finding work thing. She's the Operations Manager of an institute that studies exactly that. You should PM her.


480 is the max for SSI even if you did work, SSDI is what you get if you become disable before hitting 65. I got SSI 3 months into my total disability while waiting for SSDI to be approved which took another 4 months . They take the benefits paid for SSI out of the settlement for SSDI since that goes back to the date you became disable. That was my case and I didn't have a lawyer, nads hubby could get SSDI straight out the gate depending on that.
____________________________
.
#522 Feb 12 2013 at 11:35 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,491 posts
480 is the max for SSI even if you did work

No, it isn't.

I appreciate your help, though. Let's just agree neither of us understands it well enough to do anything beyond saying "hey, maybe you should look into this".
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#523 Feb 12 2013 at 12:37 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
****
7,476 posts
Quote:
But the lack of these things is why no one is pointing to Canada or Sweden and saying "OMG that's just like fascism! Peas in a pod!!" -- unless you're some idiotic conservative hack trying his damnest to sound smart.


Thats because we are socialist =D i.e. Not fascist.


@Gbaji, your post is full of stupid and you should feel bad.

Socialism and Fascism do not oppose Capitalism they are products of it. Socialisms ideology stems from the money going to the people, Fascisms ideology stems from the money being controlled by few people...preferably one (highlander go!) Capitalism is the crux of either economic system, they are no different than the Democratic or Republican parties, or the Conservatives and NDP here.

The issue is when wealth becomes consolidated (fascism), it allows the few to dictate the terms, with wealth spread out no one really acquires the economic power solely to dictate anything(socialsim). The same things can occur under Communism as well, they are essentially just monetary ideologies that oppose each other on the opposite ends of the economic spectrum.

Similar to how both Republic Systems (USA/France) and the Westminster Parliamentary systems(UK/Canada) are both democracies, they have their subtle differences but rely on the core principles of Democracy they do not oppose it, they are born of it.

The true opponent of Capitalism is Communism, but ill let you read about that on your own...then again I am sure Rush will tell you at some point to.









Edited, Feb 12th 2013 1:42pm by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#524 Feb 12 2013 at 12:51 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
12,004 posts
For some reason I have this idea of socialism more an economic policy; a wealth re-distribution kind of thing. Fascism being more of extreme form of nationalism that could exist irregardless of a countries position on the economic spectrum.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#525 Feb 12 2013 at 1:02 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,491 posts
For some reason I have this idea of socialism more an economic policy; a wealth re-distribution kind of thing. Fascism being more of extreme form of nationalism that could exist irregardless of a countries position on the economic spectrum.

That's pretty close, I'd say. Socialism is largely an economic theory. How it's enacted can vary wildly.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#526 Feb 12 2013 at 1:07 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
someproteinguy wrote:
For some reason I have this idea of socialism more an economic policy; a wealth re-distribution kind of thing. Fascism being more of extreme form of nationalism that could exist irregardless of a countries position on the economic spectrum.

Pretty much. That's what I meant by pointing out the authoritarian/militarism/nationalism aspects of fascism which are the ones that actually make a state "fascist". No one says "Those ***** were total assholes, what with their monetary policy..."
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#527 Feb 12 2013 at 1:20 PM Rating: Good
******
44,314 posts
There's a banker/pizza joke in there that is just out of my grasp at the moment.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#528 Feb 12 2013 at 1:21 PM Rating: Excellent
Unforkgettable
*****
13,251 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
There's a banker/pizza joke in there that is just out of my grasp at the moment.
That's OK, there's an Eggs Benedict joke about the Pope resigning that I've been failing to make. Smiley: frown
____________________________
Banh
#529 Feb 12 2013 at 1:59 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
12,055 posts
Spoonless wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
There's a banker/pizza joke in there that is just out of my grasp at the moment.
That's OK, there's an Eggs Benedict joke about the Pope resigning that I've been failing to make. Smiley: frown


Something about Benedict not covering up the hollandaise sauce very well.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#530gbaji, Posted: Feb 12 2013 at 3:33 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) LEARN2CONTEXT. I clearly stated what I meant by that statement, right after I wrote it. Taking that one short sentence and ignoring the whole paragraph that followed it is somewhat silly. Then additionally ignoring the 3 or 4 other times in the post where I elaborated on this more is even sillier.
#531gbaji, Posted: Feb 12 2013 at 3:45 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) With some degree of fascism being pretty common though. Fascism is what you can get when you enact socialism at a national level. Which for anyone paying attention is what most modern socialist countries do. They just don't call it fascism. Instead, they have after the fact changed the meaning to just refer to fascist states which became overly authoritarian and did brutal things to their neighbors and their own citizens.
#532 Feb 12 2013 at 3:46 PM Rating: Good
**
585 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
480 is the max for SSI even if you did work

No, it isn't.

I appreciate your help, though. Let's just agree neither of us understands it well enough to do anything beyond saying "hey, maybe you should look into this".



Yeah it is if you collect before you turn 65. If you become disable before 65 you collect SSDI which when I first started receiving it my benefit was 1,025 and SSI was only 480 and those were only a few months apart. I admit it might be a little more now being adjusted for cost of living as this was 5 years ago but SSI and SSDI are not the same.
____________________________
.
#533 Feb 12 2013 at 4:44 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
To argue that it's not fascism unless the state becomes oppressive to its citizens is like saying that deep fried butter isn't fattening until you actually become fat from eating it.

Or it's like understanding what fascism is but, hey, I'm sure your definition works for you.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#534 Feb 12 2013 at 4:57 PM Rating: Decent
******
21,718 posts
RavennofTitan wrote:
Smasharoo wrote:
480 is the max for SSI even if you did work

No, it isn't.

Yeah it is if you collect before you turn 65.


Nah.


Edited, Feb 12th 2013 4:57pm by BrownDuck
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#535 Feb 12 2013 at 5:24 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
297 posts
Quote:
Taking that one short sentence and ignoring the whole paragraph that followed it is somewhat silly. Then additionally ignoring the 3 or 4 other times in the post where I elaborated on this more is even sillier.


Pot meet kettle
#536 Feb 12 2013 at 5:35 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,289 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Today my husband has a phone interview to see if we can get food stamps, emergency Medicaid and any other services because he got a separation notice from his job (wonderful) so now he also has no insurance

(I don't know enough to really judge but) Sounds like a fairly trivial SSI claim. http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10029.html

There are (lots) of lawyers who specialize in it.

We've filed for SSI also and I know a guy (who knows a guy, who knows a guy) that can get us some lawyer-ly legal person.

On a brighter note though, the husband is doing much better these days. Therapy is working great and he's even already lined up a job interview on Thursday. So if we can just keep skating by a few more weeks, we might not need any serious assistance. He might be back to work before long.
#537 Feb 12 2013 at 6:41 PM Rating: Excellent
gbaji wrote:
LEARN2CONTEXT. I clearly stated what I meant by that statement, right after I wrote it. Taking that one short sentence and ignoring the whole paragraph that followed it is somewhat silly. Then additionally ignoring the 3 or 4 other times in the post where I elaborated on this more is even sillier.


Back to English 101:
1. You should have written Fascism is like socialism and then expounded upon that.
2. When you write a declarative statement and then spend three paragraphs explaining it, you are redirecting your audience to the original statement. The paragraphs don't make the original statement go away. They are there to reinforce it.

It's like you have a huge toolbox but don't really understand how to use the tools.
____________________________
Allegory wrote:
Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.
#538 Feb 12 2013 at 8:38 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
LEARN2CONTEXT. I clearly stated what I meant by that statement, right after I wrote it. Taking that one short sentence and ignoring the whole paragraph that followed it is somewhat silly. Then additionally ignoring the 3 or 4 other times in the post where I elaborated on this more is even sillier.


Back to English 101:
1. You should have written Fascism is like socialism and then expounded upon that.


I could have, but it would have been less accurate. A German Shepard is a Dog. It's not "like a Dog". In the same way, Fascism is Socialism. It's not "like Socialism". Similarly a Hot Dog is Food, Rain is Precipitation, and Mustangs are Fords. The English language allows us to use the word "is" to denote that one thing is within the set of or defined by the other. The 'toilet set is up" doesn't mean that "toilet seat" is synonymous with "up", but that it contains an attribute we call "up". Of course when using such a form it's probably a good idea to clarify exactly what is meant.

Quote:
2. When you write a declarative statement and then spend three paragraphs explaining it, you are redirecting your audience to the original statement. The paragraphs don't make the original statement go away. They are there to reinforce it.


And to clarify the earlier statement. In fact, that's precisely what you're supposed to do with following sentences in a paragraph, as anyone who's actually been taught how to write properly knows. The bizarre thing is that I'll write one short sentence which could be interpreted several different ways, then I'll follow it with several sentences in order to make it absolutely clear how that first sentence is to be interpreted, but posters will ignore all of that context and instead find some interpretation which doesn't make sense and assume that's what I meant, even if it's completely contradicted by those following sentences. You don't get to ignore the explanation in that case. But a ridiculous number of people on this forum do that all the time.

Quote:
It's like you have a huge toolbox but don't really understand how to use the tools.


That's really not it. People intentionally misinterpret what I write because it's a fun game for them, and because it's easier for them to invent some grammatical thing to argue about than to actually address what I'm saying. Instead of responding to what I actually said about socialism and fascism, you chose to argue that my use of the word "is" in one sentence must be interpreted as a bi-directional identity statement despite two or three paragraphs in the same post which made it clear that was not what I was saying.

Why do you suppose people do that? No one really cares that much about grammar. I mean, I suppose you just didn't know any better, but it's strange that you selectively choose to zero in on that one statement from me, while ignoring what has to be a mountain of much more problematic grammatical usages on this forum (even by me, I sometimes wince when I re-read my posts). Was it really that you didn't realize that "is" can be used in multiple ways? Or did you look for the one thing in my post you could claim contradicted the other stuff in there and decide to make hay over it?

Edited, Feb 12th 2013 6:40pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#539 Feb 12 2013 at 8:54 PM Rating: Excellent
Nothing to do with my politics at all.

You contradicted yourself, I pointed it out and now you're denying your mistake...as usual.

ETA: Maybe hit the "preview" button and re-read what you wrote before you post? That might clear up any "confusion" on our part.

Edited, Feb 12th 2013 7:55pm by Bijou
____________________________
Allegory wrote:
Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.
#540 Feb 12 2013 at 9:28 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
Nothing to do with my politics at all.


Lol! I'm sure it didn't.

Quote:
You contradicted yourself, I pointed it out and now you're denying your mistake...as usual.


I didn't contradict myself. I made a statement. I clarified the statement immediately afterward. You chose to ignore the clarification and instead interpret the first statement in a way that contradicted the clarification. Which seems bizarre.

Quote:
ETA: Maybe hit the "preview" button and re-read what you wrote before you post? That might clear up any "confusion" on our part.


Or you could avoid confusion by simply reading the sentences I conveniently wrote which explained exactly what I was talking about. I was very clear that Socialism is a broad concept and Fascism is a specific implementation of said concept. Not all Socialism is Fascism, but all Fascism is Socialism. I suspect the problem you're having (and not just you) with that statement is that you've been taught that the two are completely different and separate things, so when I present it in that form you reject it immediately. That's a legitimate disagreement we can have and discuss, but declaring I'm wrong because I made the statement as I did isn't helpful.


Um... We've gotten off track anyway. The core point I was making was in response to the absurd notion that Fascism is somehow related to Capitalism, while Socialism opposes Capitalism (and by extension also Fascism). That's simply wrong. Socialism opposes Capitalism. Fascism is a form of Socialism and thus also opposes Capitalism. The claim that was made is one of the great lies told by socialists in order to associate something they dislike (Capitalism) with something that is universally disliked (Fascism). That way they can attribute the negative aspects of Fascism with Capitalism and make their own preferred system appear more desirable.

But as I also pointed out earlier, this is a re-writing of history. Prior to WW2 fascism was universally understood to be an outgrowth/implementation of socialism (as was communism). Prominent socialists of the day praised fascism as an effective means of implementing the socio-economic agenda of socialism. Communists in Germany were encouraged by their leaders to vote for the **** party because they believed that it was more important to join together to fight against their common foe (free market capitalism) and they could resolve their relatively minor methodological differences later (oops!). It was only after WW2 and the revelation of atrocities in Germany that fascism became associated with such things and socialists scrambled to insist that they were really completely different all along. Never mind that there were a couple other fascist states in Europe that still existed into the 70s (Spain and Greece IIRC). What the socialists did was attach all the bad stuff Germany did to the label "fascist" and then disassociate that from their own ideology. But as I said earlier, Fascism *is* Socialism. In the same way that Pitt Bulls are dogs. One cannot argue for "dog ownership" without acknowledging that some breeds of dogs (like Pitt Bulls) may be dangerous to own. But instead of doing that (which is the honest approach), they've just attempted the equivalent of insisting that Pitt Bulls aren't dogs. They're really cats.


Which is absurd. Socialism contains within it the significant potential to create the kinds of authoritarian abuses that occurred in Germany in the 30s and 40s (or Russia during the same time period, or China a bit later, or Cambodia a bit later than that). This is so because it requires a level of increased authoritarian control by the government over the citizens daily lives compared to other systems. That doesn't mean that every socialist idea or action is inherently "bad", but that we should acknowledge this honestly and be aware of it and looking out for it. Sticking our heads in the sand and insisting that such things can't happen because we've changed the labels is stupid and dangerous. Assuming that "that can't happen here" is a huge mistake, but that's exactly what is being done via this form of disassociation. They just wrap a label around the bad stuff and shove it away from them and convince people that it can't happen. Why? What innate difference is there? The scary answer is "none".

Edited, Feb 12th 2013 7:32pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#541 Feb 12 2013 at 9:45 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,491 posts
Socialism contains within it the significant potential to create the kinds of authoritarian abuses that occurred in Germany in the 30s and 40s

Probably, but sort of a nonsensical argument. We understand you are of the opinion "socialism bad" but the bizarre arguments you make to justify what you've been informed you believe are starting to get pretty tired. Any system with any regulation at all has "significant potential" to become authoritarian. The rules of Ping Pong. Capitalism. English Common Law. Cake Recipes.

Apparently the US form of government not only has "significant potential" to lead to literal human slavery, but how to count the slaves relative to free people was written into the Constitution. Most of The Framers loved a little slave raping, those scamps.

Are you in favor of Anarchy? It's ok if you are. Anarchocapitalism is a stupid idea that would fail almost immediately, but it has legitimate arguments. You can respect someone with that position. What you can't respect is someone who mischaracterizes a belief system (either intentionally or out of ignorance, we'll give you the benefit of assuming it's ignorance here based on your track record) *solely* to associates it with some other belief system in an effort to attack it (comically).
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#542 Feb 12 2013 at 10:14 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,476 posts
Fascism is not a form of socialism. It is on the exact opposite end of the spectrum. I don't think you even know what socialism is. I strongly suggest you go read what socialism is, and what fascism is, then compare the two. Fascism at its roots is an economic position. It is entirely based on economic policy.

What Hitler did in the 1930's was enact a Dictatorship a form of Governing Policy, not Economic policy. How Hitler got to power is rooted in corporate sponsorship. Even the likes of Henry Ford was involved as were many other prominent American entrepeneurs, bankers and other such wealthy investors. They bought the media, which fueled fears of any that opposed Hitlers Rise to power...notably the communists (opposed free market enterprise), the jews (consolidation of wealth). Billions and Billions of dollars passed through Germany leading up to and during WW2, into Switzerland, and out to the USA even following the war.

Fascist Economic policy, the consolidation of wealth to the hands of the few. It is happening in America right now, and has been ever since the Federal Reserve system was established. Fascist America. A democracy, but fascist just the same.

Its ok though my country is Socialist at least I can admit it.

Edited, Feb 12th 2013 11:45pm by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#543 Feb 12 2013 at 10:28 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
What you can't respect is someone who mischaracterizes a belief system *solely* to associates it with some other belief system in an effort to attack it (comically).


So like mischaracterizing fascism *soley* to associate it with capitalism? You know, the very thing I was responding to when this whole "what is fascism" bit started? I agree completely.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#544 Feb 12 2013 at 10:56 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,476 posts
gbaji wrote:
Smasharoo wrote:
What you can't respect is someone who mischaracterizes a belief system *solely* to associates it with some other belief system in an effort to attack it (comically).


So like mischaracterizing fascism *soley* to associate it with capitalism? You know, the very thing I was responding to when this whole "what is fascism" bit started? I agree completely.


But it is. It is the right of capitalist economic policy, socialism is the left. Fascism can also be the right of communism, and socialism the left. The difference is who controls the wealth. Does the control it, or is it privately held. Is it in the hands of many or the hands of the few. That is the difference of socialism and fascism. The difference between Capitalism and Communism is the free competitive market. Communism loves their state owned ****.

a socialist communist democracy for example would be Russia.
a fascist communist Dictatorship would be China.
a socialist capitalist democracy would be Canada.
a fascist capitalist democracy would be America.

Turn off your brain and read a **** text book.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#545 Feb 12 2013 at 10:58 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Fascism is not a form of socialism. It is on the exact opposite end of the spectrum.


I think you and I are looking at a different spectrum though.

Quote:
I don't think you even know what socialism is. I strongly suggest you go read what socialism is, and what fascism is, then compare the two. Fascism at its roots is an economic position. It is entirely based on economic policy.


I'm sure I've read far more on socialism and fascism and communism than you have. Instead of declaring me wrong and suggesting I go educate myself on "the truth", you provide even the most basic evidence that you understand the concepts yourself?

Quote:
What Hitler did in the 1930's was enact a Dictatorship a form of Governing Policy, not Economic policy. How Hitler got to power is rooted in corporate sponsorship.


The "governing policy" contained a lot of economic policy as well. And how Hitler got to power was by playing on the fears of the public (btw, mostly economic), created scapegoats for those fears, and then used goon squads to force people to pick a side, with violence as the alternative to his side.

Quote:
Even the likes of Henry Ford was involved as were many other prominent American entrepeneurs, bankers and other such wealthy investors. They bought the media, which fueled fears of any that opposed Hitlers Rise to power...notably the communists (opposed free market enterprise), the jews (consolidation of wealth read about it). Billions and Billions of dollars past through Germany leading up to and during WW2, into Switzerland, and out to the USA.


That's one of the most skewed versions of this I've read. The communists worked with the **** party because both were opposed to free markets. The fascists believed in government control of industry. The difference between them and other socialists were more about details of how to go about doing it, not in the ultimate goal.

Quote:
Fascist Economic policy, the consolidation of wealth to the hands of the few.


No. It's consolidation of wealth in the hands of the government. That's what fascism is. You need to understand that when "the few" are also those the government puts in those positions and controls, it's no longer about free enterprise. The businesses are forced to go along because if they don't, their businesses will be taken from them and put into the hands of party loyalists who will play ball. The idea that anyone would confuse this for a free market capitalism is ridiculous.

Quote:
It is happening in America right now...


Yes it is. In the form of Obamacare most recently. There are elements of fascism in a number of industries though. Do you get that when the government tells an industry "you must do things this way or you can't do business", that's not a free market?

I'll say it again: The major economic objective of socialism is to use the government to force industry to provide what the government thinks the people need rather than what the markets determine people want. That's what socialism is. Within that boundary, there are two major methods to accomplish this. Direct state operation of an industry, seizing all property and replacing the market entirely or heavy state regulation of an industry, using the fear of loss of profits and property to keep those in the industry in line. While a very surface and simplistic view of the later might make one mistake it for capitalism, it's not. The key difference is whether market forces or social policy determines the decisions being made. In Socialism it's social policy which does, and both communism and fascism share this. In Capitalism, the market forces make those decisions for us and government is only minimally involved.

Quote:
... and has been ever since the Federal Reserve system was established. Fascist America. A democracy, but fascist just the same.


Oddly, that's the closest to true thing you've said. If the Fed was operated directly by the government, you'd have a point. But one of the reasons most people rail against the Fed is precisely because it's run by "rich bankers" and not the government. Um... That's what makes it not fascism. No more than any other central banking system is. Again though, if you understood that the defining characteristic of fascism is the need for government control of industry, you'd be able to clearly see how it's not remotely similar to free market capitalism.

Quote:
Its ok though my country is Socialist at least I can admit it.


Sure. Be nice if you'd stop associating fascism with capitalism. On the spectrum of "who makes decisions" they are at opposite ends. And that's the spectrum that really matters here because... wait for it... that's the defining characteristic of socialism. People who praise socialism do so because the government intervenes to provide economic outcomes that the free market would not produce. That's what makes it socialism. It's still remains socialism if the same government abuses the power it has to control economic outcomes to do other horrible things as well. Just as a dog doesn't cease to be a dog when it bites someone. The problem is that socialism has a greater potential for that abuse because it requires giving the government more power over people's lives. When you give government the power to take from people unequally, you open up the possibility that the criteria used might shift from "greedy rich people" to "Jews, cause they're rich and greedy".

Governments are powerful enough without giving them yet more power over our lives.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#546 Feb 12 2013 at 11:14 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Smasharoo wrote:
What you can't respect is someone who mischaracterizes a belief system *solely* to associates it with some other belief system in an effort to attack it (comically).


So like mischaracterizing fascism *soley* to associate it with capitalism? You know, the very thing I was responding to when this whole "what is fascism" bit started? I agree completely.


But it is. It is the right of capitalist economic policy, socialism is the left. Fascism can also be the right of communism, and socialism the left. The difference is who controls the wealth. Does the control it, or is it privately held. Is it in the hands of many or the hands of the few. That is the difference of socialism and fascism. The difference between Capitalism and Communism is the free competitive market. Communism loves their state owned sh*t.

a socialist communist democracy for example would be Russia.
a fascist communist Dictatorship would be China.
a socialist capitalist democracy would be Canada.
a fascist capitalist democracy would be America.

Turn off your brain and read a **** text book.


Ah. I love to see people who've been indoctrinated into the ridiculously simplistic "spectrum" model of socio-economic systems. Where everything exists on a scale from left to right within each spectrum, and were we arbitrarily define everything that's "bad" to the right and everything that's "good" to the left. You're kidding right? Where did you learn this? Grade school? Reality is a lot more complicated than that, but there are some simple rules if you can step away from the labels for a moment and look at reality in terms of abstract concepts instead of those labels.


Socialism is an economic theory. You're trying to split it off into a two different spectrums, with socialism on the good side and fascism on the bad side of one and communist and capitalist on opposing ends in the other. That's not correct though. Socialism is on one side and capitalism is on the other. Socialism wants to have a government controlled market, Capitalism wants a free market. Communism and fascism are specific implementations of socialism and differ only in the means of the control. They are all on the same side and are all opposed to capitalism.

You cannot have a "fascist capitalist" system. The economic spectrum should only measure the degree to which the market is free of government intervention. with capitalism (really "free market" but that's the label we're using) on one end and socialism on the other (although I suppose there's room for other highly government controlled economic systems on that end as well, but that's really another topic). That's it. There aren't two economic spectrum. Fascist governments employ massive control over the market. They are not capitalistic. They are socialistic. I know that this is uncomfortable for socialists to hear because you don't want to associate yourself with something you've demonized, but that's the simple truth. It does not cease to be true because it's inconvenient for you.

Democracy versus dictatorship is a different spectrum that has to do with how political power is gained. That's a whole different issue though.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#547 Feb 12 2013 at 11:35 PM Rating: Excellent
gbaji wrote:
The communists worked with the **** party
Clear evidence you've never read a reliable history book in you life.

Try reading Berlin Diary and Rise and Fall of the Third Reich for a start.

Holy **** are you misinformed.




Do you believe the Americans massacred the Germans at Malmedy, too?

Tool.
____________________________
Allegory wrote:
Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.
#548gbaji, Posted: Feb 13 2013 at 12:06 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I also think you're getting too caught up in the labels and failing to step back and see the bigger picture. Many of these labels have multiple aspects to them. Capitalism, for example, broadly refers to the use of "capital" to generate greater economic value than is expended obtaining it and in which increasing that capital is the goal. And you could certainly argue that this is in opposition to something like communism in which the state controls all property and industrial activity and simply allocates resources directly. But that would be missing a larger picture (and the one that's more relevant in this context). The more significant difference isn't how the resources are used, but who controls them. This is why I've repeated talked about "free markets".
#549 Feb 13 2013 at 12:11 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,476 posts
Gabaji wrote:
I think you and I are looking at a different spectrum though.


There is no different spectrum. You seem to want to confuse Governing policy (democracy, totalitarianism, authoritarianism, fundamentalism, and so on and so forth) into it. A country can be socialist and not capitalist. A country can be fascist and not communist. There is only one spectrum to look at, its economic position. Fascism is for the consolidation of wealth. Socialism is for the distribution of wealth.

Quote:
I'm sure I've read far more on socialism and fascism and communism than you have. Instead of declaring me wrong and suggesting I go educate myself on "the truth", you provide even the most basic evidence that you understand the concepts yourself?


Ya and you can be a fascist communism. China is, North Korea most certainly is. You can be a socialist communism, Russia is.

Quote:
The "governing policy" contained a lot of economic policy as well. And how Hitler got to power was by playing on the fears of the public (btw, mostly economic), created scapegoats for those fears, and then used goon squads to force people to pick a side, with violence as the alternative to his side.


Governing Policy is your nations forming of established government. Economic Policy is a position that government takes be it authoritarian, or democratic.

As for Hitler, he had no money, his party was made up of the poor workers of Germany. His money came from corporate backing, by the end of WW2 Billions passed through Germany through the ****'s, into Switzerland, and then most went to the USA. Hitler did not have the funds to be a candidate, he toed the line because he needed to be admired, his one desire. He sold out to the corporate sponsors who raped Europe for all of its wealth, and drove nearly every nation into some form of debt. Consolidation of wealth.

Quote:
That's one of the most skewed versions of this I've read. The communists worked with the **** party because both were opposed to free markets. The fascists believed in government control of industry. The difference between them and other socialists were more about details of how to go about doing it, not in the ultimate goal.


Hitler most certainly wanted free markets, considering he established Germany as the most economic free zone in the World at the time and was rewarded with the Olympics, Everyone else was still playing Isolationist, then again Hitler got to see a good 10 years of Germany being broke *** before the rest of the world joined in in 1929. But again your complete lack of understanding of the details shines through.

The difference between the ***** and other social movements was the investing power of rich white guys. Thats it.

Quote:
No. It's consolidation of wealth in the hands of the government. That's what fascism is. You need to understand that when "the few" are also those the government puts in those positions and controls, it's no longer about free enterprise. The businesses are forced to go along because if they don't, their businesses will be taken from them and put into the hands of party loyalists who will play ball. The idea that anyone would confuse this for a free market capitalism is ridiculous.


Not entirely true. If the government was a few people who controlled everything, say like North Korea, then yes that would be Fascism. However over here in Canada as the Government (the people) buy more stuff for themselves collectively (say like healthcare) and need to consolidate more funds (revenue) that would be called Socialism.

You seem to confusing Capitalism and Communism again.

Quote:
Yes it is. In the form of Obamacare most recently. There are elements of fascism in a number of industries though. Do you get that when the government tells an industry "you must do things this way or you can't do business", that's not a free market?


No that is Socialism. Your Government (the people) have decided to buy themselves some stuff collectively (healthcare) and now need to consolidate more funds (revenue).

This is the consolidation of wealth to the many, not to the few. Socialism.


As for your second question. That is called Regulation. You know like laws for companies....I mean America is a free country ya? Do you have rules?






Quote:
Sure. Be nice if you'd stop associating fascism with capitalism. On the spectrum of "who makes decisions" they are at opposite ends. And that's the spectrum that really matters here because... wait for it... that's the defining characteristic of socialism. People who praise socialism do so because the government intervenes to provide economic outcomes that the free market would not produce.


So you can't buy health insurance in America? Wow sh*tty third world stuff if you ask me.


Quote:
That's what makes it socialism. It's still remains socialism if the same government abuses the power it has to control economic outcomes to do other horrible things as well. Just as a dog doesn't cease to be a dog when it bites someone. The problem is that socialism has a greater potential for that abuse because it requires giving the government more power over people's lives.




What kind of government. In my country (a democracy) if it breaches its trust of power, it doesn't get elected again. I guess ya in North Korea you would be right, but then again the government isn't very socialist, I mean those people starve by the thousands a day.




Quote:
When you give government the power to take from people unequally, you open up the possibility that the criteria used might shift from "greedy rich people" to "Jews, cause they're rich and greedy".


Whoa slow down Hitler. There are richer people than the Jews now...your fascist friends already cleaned them out in 1937.












Edited, Feb 13th 2013 1:17am by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#550 Feb 13 2013 at 12:15 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,476 posts
I was going to reply to your other post, but I notice you snuck in a backpedealing post there.

Danger Slippery slope ahead!

You must only read blogs or some sh*t. Then again I imagine thats why you believe the whole Reload shenanigans was about mashing F5.


@#%^ it because it ****** me off.

Quote:
Communism failed spectacularly so nearly all socialists have switched to advocating for government regulation of private companies, public/private partnerships, part rather than whole ownership, tax funded incentives, and other economic tools to force the outcomes they want.


Communism is @#%^ing thriving is China Capitalist ya Dumbass. It is arguably the best economy in the world right now. Do you think that place is capitalist. What about resurgent Russia, who is also doing very well right now, they are not a capitalist economy, the majority of their good sh*t is all state owned **** they just bought Uranium One Inc. a private Canadian uranium mining company. (I made about 1500 bucks on it, here in socialist Canada.) In 3 months it will be owned by the Russian State.

Meanwhile, your country is rocking a 10 billion debt (or so) to a dozen private banks. The only way for America to recover is to borrow more money this includes your Private investment sh*tstorm about generating economy. All initial loans are initiated by the fed to Private Memeber companies, of which a dozen or so are required to buy back the debt. For each dollar they lend or buy, these dozen or so banks make about .0018 cents.

That is America, home of the free and apparently the only Capitalist Nation in the world, because Rush said Fascism, Socialism and Communism are all the same. Dey all bad ma! dey all bad!

You are a dumb @#%^ that is for **** sure.

Edited, Feb 13th 2013 1:31am by rdmcandie

Edited, Feb 13th 2013 1:32am by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#551 Feb 13 2013 at 12:22 AM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The communists worked with the **** party
Clear evidence you've never read a reliable history book in you life.


Yes, I have. The communists initially opposed the fascists, but not because they were significantly different, but because they were very similar and thus competing for the same followers. When it became clear that fascism had greater support than communism in Germany, the communists were encouraged to vote for the ***** because they were closer ideologically. The belief was that as long as some form of socialism was in effect they could continue working to move towards communism, but if the country moved in the other direction it would be a blow for all of them (and for a broader socialist movement going on in Europe at the time). Of course, they got screwed in that deal, but that's part of the whole gap between those seeking power and those giving it to them concept.

You are also getting caught up in labels and missing the bigger picture. There were many different groups which called themselves socialists, communists, and fascists. There were many variations among them, and much argument about what it meant to be each of those things. They also varied based on which country you were talking about. Trying to create a single overarching platform and apply it to one label is ridiculous. It can't be done. That's why it's more useful to look at broader picture and see how the various pieces fit into it at different times and places.


The broader picture is that "socialism" is an economic agenda that desires to put government in control of the industry in order to correct for social injustice within society. It's born out of the assumption that free markets cannot ensure that everyone gets a sufficient slice of the pie. Thus socialism in all its forms is opposed to free markets. Period. That's the one defining characteristic and common point. Every other variation is just window dressing. It's differences in methodology. The underlying assumptions and goals, and the arguments used to sell them to the people are the same. You (and others) want to do the equivalent of insisting that a red plane has more in common with a red car than it does with a blue plane. You're using the wrong criteria to judge how similar one thing is to another.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 34 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (34)