Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

On the Armenian GenocideFollow

#677 Feb 24 2018 at 7:16 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,298 posts
Palpitus1 wrote:
gbaji wrote:
You "care about people". Ok. Riddle me this. What happens if, in the process of caring for so many people, you bankrupt the system you're using to do the caring?


That's super bizarre, considering the US is 20 trillion in debt and spends 1 trillion a year on warmongering.

I think you are massively not realizing what particular effort/cause is close to bankrupting the nation....

...nor who has gained monies from that 1 trillion a year. [Welfare queens got nothing on Armament Engineer Queens]


....uh, I mean you need to go to remedial school for a lot of things at this point, dude. And yeah, I say this as a defender and admirer of you here on this centrist website with many useless mush-brained cunts who also ignore trillions on warmongering and millions of dead innocents murdered by Trump and Obama and Bush, but you are also DAFT.

Is halving the DOD budget possible? Would that $500 billion be better used on "caring for so many people", and equally not bankrupting the system?


You really need to self-interrogate per morality, and mathematics, and etc. So do all of you other couch-chair ******* Obama apologists. Double-tap. Look into it and war crimes, just for one thing. First Responders, weddings....etc. And Hillary lost in no small reason due to Obama sucking *** at helping poor people, minorities, etc.

Edited, Feb 24th 2018 6:03am by Palpitus1


May I say, in a very polite way, that you are not best advocate for your cause - whatever it may be.
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#678 Feb 26 2018 at 5:22 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
**
257 posts
angrymnk wrote:
May I say, in a very polite way, that you are not best advocate for your cause - whatever it may be.


Okay dude. My ostensible cause here which I continue to repeat is that US President Barack Obama promised to call the Armenian Genocide a Genocide, yet via pressure from Turkey he did not. DO YOU DISPUTE THIS. A lot have given a ton of **** and such the thread, which has sure, expanded into stuff.

But my cause is yes or no, did Obama call that a genocide or did he not. Promise broken.


And then a lot of other stuff including Turkey and geopolitics [and I've learned things and hopefully the thread has been productive overall, not just bitter] which as you seem to be ignorant of things, may not intrigue you at all. Not sure simple alphabet blocks would intrigue you.

There may be a more "best" advocate for my cause(s) but if so he or she ain't ******' posting here, polite dude or gal~! then why wait?

Are you waiting for a Gandhi-Chomsky-Kucinich-Buddha before you can get behind a moral theme? Or even a binary logic--Obama did or did not do something?

Or honestly with these centrists to right posters here, waiting for a Cheney-Kissinger-Kristol-Bolton beloved angel. Let's just invade every country ever.

Thanks for the response but this thread is stupid and I'm stupid and yet it's kind of thematic in various ways, plus other tendrils of good stuff. And I guess sure, **** ME. May you, angrymnk, take over the "Obama promised to call the Armenian Genocide a Genocide as part of his election promise, yet 8 years later has not done so". I mean duh ******* just a fact. But yeah, not trying to put you on a spot, angrymnk.

And holy lord this **** has got nothing on Syria. I have some opinions on that but that's way too complicated to go on about even here. MY LOVE.

Edited, Feb 26th 2018 7:00am by Palpitus1
#679 Feb 26 2018 at 6:10 AM Rating: Good
***
1,088 posts
And Hillary lost in no small reason due to Obama sucking *** at helping poor people, minorities, etc.

Can you back up that claim? Obama is a minority, and he seemed to do pretty well out of the Obama administration.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#680 Feb 26 2018 at 7:36 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,298 posts
Palpitus1 wrote:
angrymnk wrote:
May I say, in a very polite way, that you are not best advocate for your cause - whatever it may be.


Okay dude. My ostensible cause here which I continue to repeat is that US President Barack Obama promised to call the Armenian Genocide a Genocide, yet via pressure from Turkey he did not. DO YOU DISPUTE THIS. A lot have given a ton of **** and such the thread, which has sure, expanded into stuff.

But my cause is yes or no, did Obama call that a genocide or did he not. Promise broken.


And then a lot of other stuff including Turkey and geopolitics [and I've learned things and hopefully the thread has been productive overall, not just bitter] which as you seem to be ignorant of things, may not intrigue you at all. Not sure simple alphabet blocks would intrigue you.

There may be a more "best" advocate for my cause(s) but if so he or she ain't ******' posting here, polite dude or gal~! then why wait?

Are you waiting for a Gandhi-Chomsky-Kucinich-Buddha before you can get behind a moral theme? Or even a binary logic--Obama did or did not do something?

Or honestly with these centrists to right posters here, waiting for a Cheney-Kissinger-Kristol-Bolton beloved angel. Let's just invade every country ever.

Thanks for the response but this thread is stupid and I'm stupid and yet it's kind of thematic in various ways, plus other tendrils of good stuff. And I guess sure, **** ME. May you, angrymnk, take over the "Obama promised to call the Armenian Genocide a Genocide as part of his election promise, yet 8 years later has not done so". I mean duh ******* just a fact. But yeah, not trying to put you on a spot, angrymnk.

And holy lord this **** has got nothing on Syria. I have some opinions on that but that's way too complicated to go on about even here. MY LOVE.

Edited, Feb 26th 2018 7:00am by Palpitus1


I think I can best categorize you as a critical thinking student, who read Chomsky for the first time. I mean, I get it, but you are not really impressing anyone - including genocide du jour. You fail to inform, impress or even entertain. So you might not care about those failures, but the victims of said genocide do. Do you not feel you cause more harm by your stupidity than an average, in your estimation, "ignorant" person? You do not really have to answer. From relatively sane person's perspective, you fail those victims too. Good job. The best.
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#681 Feb 26 2018 at 8:28 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,304 posts
Palpitus1 wrote:
Let's just invade every country ever.
Dibs on Prussia.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#682 Feb 26 2018 at 11:14 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,586 posts
Fine with me, I'm aiming for something tropical. Nothing too exciting, but a small little place out of the way where one could build a nice island fortress would be more ideal.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#683 Feb 26 2018 at 11:52 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Most of my Civ games turn me into fighting every nation at once and I usually come out okay so I endorse this plan.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#684 Feb 26 2018 at 7:48 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,256 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I would say that the key difference between a Democrat and a Communist...
Given that in the past you couldn't discern Communists from friggin' Nazis...


Socialists, not Communists. My argument was that ****'s were socialists. And just to be super clear, it's a subset. Nazism (Fascism to be more correct) is a subset of Socialism. Communism is also a subset of Socialism. So while all Fascists are Socialists. And all Communists are Socialists. Not all Socialists are Fascists, and not all Socialists are Communists, and certainly not all Communists are Fascists (or vice versa).

Got it? Or do you need a Venn diagram for this?

Quote:
...I'll just go with the notion that you have the same problem with Commies and Democrats.Smiley: schooled


Or we'll go with the notion that you are projecting your problem with Socialists and Communists onto me. I have no issue understanding the relative relationship of these terms. Many modern liberals do, purely because they can't stomach the idea that the same basic ideology that drives their form of socialism is a relatively close cousin to the ideology that drove Germany's "basket of deplorables" into death camps back in the 30s and 40s.

Edited, Feb 26th 2018 5:49pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#685 Feb 26 2018 at 8:02 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,256 posts
Palpitus1 wrote:
gbaji wrote:
You "care about people". Ok. Riddle me this. What happens if, in the process of caring for so many people, you bankrupt the system you're using to do the caring?


That's super bizarre, considering the US is 20 trillion in debt and spends 1 trillion a year on warmongering.


We spend $585B/year on the entire DoD budget. Even assuming 100% of that is for "warmongering", that's only just slightly more than half of what you just claimed.

Quote:
I think you are massively not realizing what particular effort/cause is close to bankrupting the nation....


Sigh... Seriously? I'm pretty sure I just countered this. Let me do it again. The entire US defense budget is only 15% of the entire US budget. Period. It's not what is or may be bankrupting our nation. Heck. Even leaving out health care and social security (which together account for roughly half of our entire government spending each year), the category of "non-discretionary non-defense spending" is $600B/year. We spend more on "random stuff" each year than we spend on our military.

Quote:
...nor who has gained monies from that 1 trillion a year. [Welfare queens got nothing on Armament Engineer Queens]


Wrong.


Quote:
....uh, I mean you need to go to remedial school for a lot of things at this point, dude.


Irony. Look it up.

Quote:
Is halving the DOD budget possible? Would that $500 billion be better used on "caring for so many people", and equally not bankrupting the system?


Lol! There's that irony again. That's almost exactly what we actually spend. So um... yeah.

I get that actual facts and data is a foreign concept for you, but if you're going to criticize people for not knowing facts, and not knowing numbers, you should maybe actually spend even a tiny bit of effort making sure your own facts are correct? Or at least vaguely in the right range?

Quote:
And Hillary lost in no small reason due to Obama sucking *** at helping poor people, minorities, etc.


This is about the only thing you got semi-right. Obama was one of those rare presidents who was personally quite popular, despite his policies being quite unpopular. It allowed him to get away with a ton of stuff that other presidents might not have, but it did also make it harder for the next Democrat to follow him. Doubly so given that Hillary is *not* popular herself. Combine that with concerns about more of the same bad policies that people didn't like, and you basically were doubling down on negatives.

Didn't help matters that she ran a totally tone deaf campaign either.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#686 Feb 26 2018 at 8:46 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
they can't stomach the idea that the same basic ideology that drives their form of socialism is a relatively close cousin to the ideology that drove Germany's "basket of deplorables" into death camps back in the 30s and 40s.

...says the guy who'll spend days and days denying that the Alt-Right White Nationalist rallies have anything to do with conservatism or who convinced himself that you never see the same guys waving the Nazi and Confederate flags Smiley: laugh

It's okay though because there's fine people on both sides and anyone murdered during a Confederate White Nationalist rally sort of deserved it for not having the correct forms on file with the village hall.

Just more Democrats, I guess. Funny that they'd be at a Unite The Right rally but who knows what those zany liberals are thinking Smiley: laugh

Edited, Feb 26th 2018 9:12pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#687 Feb 26 2018 at 9:29 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,298 posts
gbaji wrote:


Socialists, not Communists. My argument was that ****'s were socialists. And just to be super clear, it's a subset. Nazism (Fascism to be more correct) is a subset of Socialism. Communism is also a subset of Socialism. So while all Fascists are Socialists. And all Communists are Socialists. Not all Socialists are Fascists, and not all Socialists are Communists, and certainly not all Communists are Fascists (or vice versa).

Got it? Or do you need a Venn diagram for this?



Almighty Altana, are we doing definition stretching again? I get that that both "sides" of the political spectrum want to assign fascism to "the other" team, but this has to stop. Words have definitions for a ******* reason. And yeah, we can go all over the ******* history of it and how it emerged, but at the end of the day but, on a normal ******* day, fascism is on the right side of the spectrum, not left ( if we are taking the simplistic view ). How did you get to that point? Are there some special classes?

I guess we may as well talk about how we conflate what was promised to the dumb electorate and how it worked in practice ( like you know, what we get in US? ), but this is not the same.

But yeah, words matter. So no. All fascist are not socialists. **** me. Where the **** do you learn this idiocy? Like seriously. Is there a place I can go to ensure this **** stops?

Edited, Feb 26th 2018 10:30pm by angrymnk
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#688 Feb 26 2018 at 9:46 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Aw, c'mon. They have "Socialist" right in the name! Just like these guys who made that flag/diamond thing a common symbol at the right wing rallies. They're from the National Socialist Movement, a group that teaches that all non-whites need to be forcefully removed from the country, that mixed race children are degenerates and the usual anti-Semitic stuff.

But it says socialist... kind of makes you wonder why they're out there in their MAGA hats at right wing rallies. Huh.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#689 Feb 26 2018 at 10:10 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,509 posts
gbaji wrote:
Socialists, not Communists. My argument was that ****'s were socialists. And just to be super clear, it's a subset. Nazism (Fascism to be more correct) is a subset of Socialism. Communism is also a subset of Socialism. So while all Fascists are Socialists. And all Communists are Socialists. Not all Socialists are Fascists, and not all Socialists are Communists, and certainly not all Communists are Fascists (or vice versa).
Wrong then; wrong now.

IDIOT.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
#690 Feb 26 2018 at 10:20 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,298 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Aw, c'mon. They have "Socialist" right in the name! Just like these guys who made that flag/diamond thing a common symbol at the right wing rallies. They're from the National Socialist Movement, a group that teaches that all non-whites need to be forcefully removed from the country, that mixed race children are degenerates and the usual anti-Semitic stuff.

But it says socialist... kind of makes you wonder why they're out there in their MAGA hats at right wing rallies. Huh.


The worst part is you are right. I miss the good ole days, where ******** didn't try to hide they were ********. Everyone knew. I liked how department of war was that department of war ( and not this silly crap about defense ). Why does everyone have to pretend to be something they are not? Why an ******* can't simply say: "I am an *******. Here is my platform. I want to **** you so hard you children's children will be begging to be decapitated." I mean. We are already there in practice. Might as well put some truth in advertising. It is not like anyone would care anyway?
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#691 Feb 27 2018 at 1:13 AM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,509 posts
angrymnk wrote:
Fascism is on the right side of the spectrum, not left ( if we are taking the simplistic view ). How did you get to that point?
Desperately flailing about trying to pretend that the very people he loves and votes for aren't racist assholes.



ALSO: An Ayn Rand blog told him so and blogs are better than truth.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
#692 Feb 27 2018 at 6:16 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
**
257 posts
angrymnk wrote:
I think I can best categorize you as a critical thinking student, who read Chomsky for the first time. I mean, I get it, but you are not really impressing anyone - including genocide du jour. You fail to inform, impress or even entertain.


ROFL.

Quote:
Do you not feel you cause more harm by your stupidity than an average, in your estimation, "ignorant" person? You do not really have to answer.


Thank goodness I don't have to answer to an absolute flailing moron such as yourself!

What the ****, seriously. Smiley: oyvey

This fool is calling me out? Uh, sure angrymnk, I don't hang around here much but please do start a thread in general discussion or here about well...any of your contentions.

"genocide du jour". "read Chomsky for the first time".

Yeah, let's dance, ************. What is your pro or con debate topic? What are you even talking about, concerning the Armenian Genocide, and....whatever bees habit your brain....

...French language and citing Chomsky from one of several that was cited is not a valid pro or con debate position. I imagine. Maybe you could fashion it so. Or maybe you could get off my **** and shut the ****.

Edited, Feb 27th 2018 7:38am by Palpitus1
#693 Feb 27 2018 at 6:50 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
**
257 posts
gbaji wrote:
Quote:


That's super bizarre, considering the US is 20 trillion in debt and spends 1 trillion a year on warmongering.


We spend $585B/year on the entire DoD budget. Even assuming 100% of that is for "warmongering", that's only just slightly more than half of what you just claimed.


heh. Jesus. So you are ignorant of discretionary spending and war budgets and such which go above and beyond annual DoD budget...[and even not to mention VA health costs and other benefits/costs of warmongering]

You think the DoD budget per year means that's the full entire monies spent on US warmongering? Apparently. Either you're a liar or you are a fool.

Is it your contention that the DoD budget is the absolute most that the US spends on various war things per annum?

childlike

Edited, Feb 27th 2018 7:51am by Palpitus1

Edited, Feb 27th 2018 7:52am by Palpitus1
#694 Feb 27 2018 at 7:10 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,298 posts
Palpitus1 wrote:
angrymnk wrote:
I think I can best categorize you as a critical thinking student, who read Chomsky for the first time. I mean, I get it, but you are not really impressing anyone - including genocide du jour. You fail to inform, impress or even entertain.


ROFL.

Quote:
Do you not feel you cause more harm by your stupidity than an average, in your estimation, "ignorant" person? You do not really have to answer.


Thank goodness I don't have to answer to an absolute flailing moron such as yourself!

What the ****, seriously. Smiley: oyvey

This fool is calling me out? Uh, sure angrymnk, I don't hang around here much but please do start a thread in general discussion or here about well...any of your contentions.

"genocide du jour". "read Chomsky for the first time".

Yeah, let's dance, ************. What is your pro or con debate topic? What are you even talking about, concerning the Armenian Genocide, and....whatever bees habit your brain....

...French language and citing Chomsky from one of several that was cited is not a valid pro or con debate position. I imagine. Maybe you could fashion it so. Or maybe you could get off my **** and shut the ****.

Edited, Feb 27th 2018 7:38am by Palpitus1



And yet you did. I take it back. You are funny. I am not certain it is intentional. Since that is the case, my position is that nobody cares. My position is also that you do not care as well, based on your performance here. Rebuttal?
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#695 Feb 27 2018 at 8:16 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
angrymnk wrote:
Almighty Altana, are we doing definition stretching again? I get that that both "sides" of the political spectrum want to assign fascism to "the other" team, but this has to stop.

It's a classic case of "Aside from that, how was the play Mrs Lincoln?". There's some below the fold issues that the National Socialist Movement shares with liberal ideals. Apparently they like health care. And national parks. Strangely, they say they want to break up the fortunes of the ultra-wealthy but then they're also advocates of a flat tax which is sort of contradictory. They talk a lot about the working guy but they want unions to be illegal. They want to do away with NATO and NAFTA which sounds a lot like a certain president we currently have.

But no one says "Man, I like the idea of a flat tax (or nationalized health care).... I think I'll join the Nazis." Likewise, no one says "You know, the real evil was Hitler's views on the federal reserve banking system." Nope, for that it's the headliner issues: racial purity, cultural purity, etc. And when a bunch of "white purity & culture" people are picking between one party whose leader says we need more immigrants from Norway and fewer from "shithole" African & Latin American nations and another party that advocates for universal health care, stopping the darkies from entering the US wins every time. The party that aligns with their English-Only policy wins every time. The party that wants to build a giant wall wins every time. The party that wants to deport however million Hispanics wins every time. The party that launches conspiracy theories and protests about "Ground Zero Mosques" aligns perfectly with a group that says only religions that don't offend white people should be legal. A president who says that the media has too much freedom sounds great to people who want the law to require all newspaper columnists to be English-speaking US citizens. The party that goes balls out to defend monuments to men who died to preserve and enshrine the subjugation of African-Americans wins every time. The guys who believe that homosexuals are degenerates is probably going to pick the party that cheers when its civil servants refuse to follow the law and issue marriage licenses. This is ignoring all of the Trump campaign's race baiting and plausible deniability antics during the campaign.

I don't even need to make this argument: This is why the Alt-Right, the neo-Nazis, the KKK and other people who embody the actual evil aspects of Nazism align themselves with the Republicans. Trying to make it about government regulation of public parks is like saying that Bernie Sanders is a libertarian because he supports legal weed. That ain't what libertarianism is actually all about.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#696 Feb 27 2018 at 9:12 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,304 posts
angrymnk wrote:
Rebuttal?
He thinks that as long as the thread is active Obama is eventually going to read it and commit suicide on television for doing the same thing every politician in the history of politics has done before, during, and after him.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#697 Feb 27 2018 at 9:42 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
The guy does probably have more time on his hands these days. Maybe he does vanity Google searches for his name and is working his way down the list.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#698 Feb 27 2018 at 9:01 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,256 posts
angrymnk wrote:
Words have definitions for a ******* reason. And yeah, we can go all over the ******* history of it and how it emerged, but at the end of the day but, on a normal ******* day, fascism is on the right side of the spectrum, not left ( if we are taking the simplistic view ).


Wrong. Again, you want it to be that way, but Fascism is and has always been a leftist movement. And not just "leftist" in the sense of "liberal" in the sense of "we're changing the status quo!" (which, let's face it, is meaningless), but actually a freaking branch of Socialism.

Where do you think the word "Fascism" comes from? Seriously. Go look it up. It was derived from the Fascia (or Fascio, if you're Italian), which referred to a bundle of small rods tied tightly together to form one single large and strong rod. The core concept of Fascism is that if you can get all of the people working towards a common cause, you are stronger than if you allow people to all do their own thing. As a form of government, its primary focus is to create "big government" programs to solve problems, and at the same time to employ any idle hand in work.

Sound familiar? That's socialism. I get that over time, folks on the Left have created this ideal image of Socialism, where it's all about fighting for social causes and whatnot. But that's not what actually defines socialism. Socialism is about the government having a high degree of control over the industry of a nation. Period. What is fascism? A government with a high degree of control over the industry of the nation. Fascism is a single specific instance of the broader umbrella concept of "Socialism". Just as communism is. They are all systems of government in which the good of "the people" is assumed to outweigh the freedoms of the individual, and allow for a state which forces individuals into actions which benefit the whole even if they would otherwise choose not to.

What the heck do you think the basic assumption behind Obamacare is? Make everyone fund into the same system, even if it financially hurts many, because the greater good to the whole is assumed to be worth it. Every freaking thing that defines socialism is about this. When we talk about big government, this is what we're talking about.

Quote:
How did you get to that point? Are there some special classes?


Sadly, it apparently does require special classes, since so many are woefully ignorant on the history of these forms of government.

Riddle me this: How on earth can you possibly think that a philosophy of governing based on the assumption that individual freedoms is the most important thing, and that government should be as small as possible, with as little influence over our businesses and lives as possible, could ever be even remotely similar to Fascism? It makes zero sense. You have to have an authoritarian government to have Fascism. And Modern Conservatism (AKA: Classical Liberalism), is the exact opposite of that. Modern Socialism is the vehicle that can allow for Fascism.

Quote:
But yeah, words matter. So no. All fascist are not socialists.


Yes, they are. They may not realize it. They may be using the same incorrect labels that you have been taught. But from an objective evaluation of the political ideologies involved, then yes, all Fascists are also Socialists. Socialism is the ideology that the government is the best tool to control things, and not the people individually. That's the same basic ideology that forms Fascism.

Not all Socialists are Fascists, but all Fascists are Socialists. Again,the problem is that since WW2, the modern Left has gone to great lengths to re-define things so as to distance themselves from Fascism (and specifically Nazism). But that does not change the absolute fact that the underlying principles of those two forms of government were derived from the root of Socialism. Without Socialism you can't have Fascism.

What to know what else is associated with Socialism, and the whole "good of the whole"? Eugenics. For some of us, this is pretty obvious. For others? Not so much.


Quote:
**** me. Where the **** do you learn this idiocy? Like seriously. Is there a place I can go to ensure this **** stops?


The sad thing is when fact is labeled as idiocy. Seriously. Stop parroting labels and assumptions and engage your brain. We have two major "sides" in terms of modern western political ideology. One says that government should be as small as possible, with as little influence and power over the day to day actions of the citizens as possible. The other believes that government should actively involve itself in making the society better, and creates reams of regulations and government programs to pursue this goal, along the way empowering government.

Which one do you think could ever possibly develop freaking death camps? Hint: It's the second one. The one that empowers government to "make things better". You can't get Fascism without a Big Government starting point. You simply can't. And yes, while not all Socialist systems will go so far, it's a matter of degrees of power, and how far those in power think they should go to make the nation stronger, better, more pure, whatever. The same ideology that accepts the idea of using the government to force some people to pay more for something so that others can pay less, includes the idea of using the government to force some people into labor to provide for the rest, or any other forced action which can be justified on the grounds that the end result will be better for the whole.

And guess what? That ideology is behind just about every Democratic Party social program passed over the last 80 years or so. It's the same thing. What's scary is that you refuse to see this.



Edited, Feb 27th 2018 7:04pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#699 Feb 27 2018 at 9:40 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,256 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Aw, c'mon. They have "Socialist" right in the name! Just like these guys who made that flag/diamond thing a common symbol at the right wing rallies. They're from the National Socialist Movement, a group that teaches that all non-whites need to be forcefully removed from the country, that mixed race children are degenerates and the usual anti-Semitic stuff.


What makes them Socialist is that they believe in using Government power to achieve their social agenda.

What you (many of you, apparently) are not getting is that the basic idea of socialism isn't about the specifics of what you want to use government power to do, but that you believe in empowering government to do such things in the first place. Using government programs to feed the hungry? Socialist. Using government programs to put people in death camps? Also Socialist.

Both groups will insist they are doing what they are doing for the "good of the country".

Quote:
But it says socialist... kind of makes you wonder why they're out there in their MAGA hats at right wing rallies. Huh.


Again. Your problem is you are assuming that Socialism is about using the government to do good things, because that's what you want the government to do. You define this on the "good/evil" axis. But it's not about that. It's about the "authoritarian/libertarian" axis. Socialism is on the authoritarian side of that axis. Conservatism is on the libertarian side of that axis. Period. Socialism does not cease to be Socialism if what those in power choose to do with with that authority is "evil".

You somehow believe that you can grant the government massive power over the people, and then, when those in power misuse it, and do horrible things, you stand to the side and insist that it's not your fault because that's not what you wanted. Somehow when that power is used for evil, it magically becomes what? Conservative? How does that work? The Conservatives are the ones arguing against giving the government that kind of power in the first place.

Sorry. Not buying it as anything other than a weak attempt to avoid responsibility. Your "side" gives government that power, you are responsible for what it does with it.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#700 Feb 27 2018 at 9:40 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,256 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Aw, c'mon. They have "Socialist" right in the name! Just like these guys who made that flag/diamond thing a common symbol at the right wing rallies. They're from the National Socialist Movement, a group that teaches that all non-whites need to be forcefully removed from the country, that mixed race children are degenerates and the usual anti-Semitic stuff.


What makes them Socialist is that they believe in using Government power to achieve their social agenda.

What you (many of you, apparently) are not getting is that the basic idea of socialism isn't about the specifics of what you want to use government power to do, but that you believe in empowering government to do such things in the first place. Using government programs to feed the hungry? Socialist. Using government programs to put people in death camps? Also Socialist.

Both groups will insist they are doing what they are doing for the "good of the country".

Quote:
But it says socialist... kind of makes you wonder why they're out there in their MAGA hats at right wing rallies. Huh.


Again. Your problem is you are assuming that Socialism is about using the government to do good things, because that's what you want the government to do. You define this on the "good/evil" axis. But it's not about that. It's about the "authoritarian/libertarian" axis. Socialism is on the authoritarian side of that axis. Conservatism is on the libertarian side of that axis. Period. Socialism does not cease to be Socialism if what those in power choose to do with with that authority is "evil".

You somehow believe that you can grant the government massive power over the people, and then, when those in power misuse it, and do horrible things, you stand to the side and insist that it's not your fault because that's not what you wanted. Somehow when that power is used for evil, it magically becomes what? Conservative? How does that work? The Conservatives are the ones arguing against giving the government that kind of power in the first place.

Sorry. Not buying it as anything other than a weak attempt to avoid responsibility. Your "side" gives government that power, you are responsible for what it does with it.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#701 Feb 27 2018 at 9:52 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,256 posts
Palpitus1 wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Quote:


That's super bizarre, considering the US is 20 trillion in debt and spends 1 trillion a year on warmongering.


We spend $585B/year on the entire DoD budget. Even assuming 100% of that is for "warmongering", that's only just slightly more than half of what you just claimed.


heh. Jesus. So you are ignorant of discretionary spending and war budgets and such which go above and beyond annual DoD budget...[and even not to mention VA health costs and other benefits/costs of warmongering]


Ah yes. The gnostic like claim that there must be some "secret spending" going on somewhere that the ignorant masses are just not aware of, which does not appear in any line item in the budget, and does not appear in the historical spending documents either.

Um... Yeah. That's how much we actually spend on our military. While you are correct that the VA budget comes out of a separate pool, I would hope you would also agree that spending money on health care isn't "war mongering" either.

Quote:
You think the DoD budget per year means that's the full entire monies spent on US warmongering? Apparently. Either you're a liar or you are a fool.


Well. I suppose you'd need to let us know what exactly you consider spending on war mongering. To me, this is costs for things like bombs, and planes, and tanks, and drones, and whatnot. You know, things actually spent on war and other forms of physical conflict.

Quote:
Is it your contention that the DoD budget is the absolute most that the US spends on various war things per annum?


While I'm sure a small amount of things you might label as "war mongering" (Intelligence, foreign services? Who knows?) might come out of other budgets, yeah, by far the majority of anything we might normally consider connected to war comes out of the DoD budget. Where do you think it comes from? Under someone's hat? A secret budget that no one knows about?

Provide data if you think otherwise.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 6 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (6)