Emerging Rift in the DNC?

cheeba wrote:

I really don't understand why you think those are the only two things I consider great examples of capitalism in motion. I listed more things than just those two, and the things I listed aren't exhaustive. You're trying to play "gotcha" forum wars and it ain't workin'.

I'm pointing out that you didn't make your case.

Jonman wrote:
cheeba wrote:

And there's the problem. The left has been extremely successful going after youth. If they don't understand that capitalism is what made this country great, then I am worried.

Citation needed.

Firstly a citation that shows that this country is "great", then another one that shows that it's because of capitalism.

Your response was to haphazardly mention the Internet, the moon landing, the assembly line, the Wright Brothers, and Edison.

Apart from hand-waving, no argument was made that this country was great, nor was any argument made that showed this country's greatness was due to capitalism (though I expect you'll walk it back, the initial claim wasn't that it was one of many reasons the US is great).

In any event, if the new goalposts are "not every example I mentioned in passing has been thoroughly debunked as being something that made this country great and whose role in contributing to that greatness is directly attributable to capitalism", perhaps at the very least we need a different thread?

I think it was Jerry Jones who said about the NFL Owner's Association that they were a bunch of rich Republicans who all got together and acted like Socialists (e.g.: salary cap, restricted free agency, revenue sharing...).

Capitalism certainly does work well as an engine, but the prevailing orthodoxy in the current GOP today seems to be that the engine should be driving the car. It wasn't always that way and in decades past, respected Republicans were able to have frank conversations about the nature and benefits of industrial or social policy without being shouted down by knuckledraggers from the rural South as "socialists".

sigh.

cheeba wrote:

Nah, just wrong (and so lefty-preachy, oof). Germany has freedom? Take a look at their free speech laws. Same with Canada and nearly every other nation.

Wait, Canada is not free? Whoulda knew. Of course, given that we have had gay marriage for well over a decade now, I would say that we are freer than the US on that note. Also, given that we have a national healthcare system, I would say that we are freer from crushing debt caused by a sudden illness as well. I would also say that we are freer on racism and discrimination based on religious beliefs as well.

Of course, if you believe that allowing hate speech is an important part of a free society, go for it. I still am not sure how the existence laws restricting speech can be used to determine that a country is free or not. You will have to go into more details than that. For example, in the US, you have laws restricting speech. You can't yell "Fire" in a crowded theatre, for example. I guess, by your definition, that makes US not a free country??

Sigh. Cheeba failed to make any points that were even remotely worth responding to. Why do I wake up to 20+ replies of troll food?

mudbunny wrote:
cheeba wrote:

Nah, just wrong (and so lefty-preachy, oof). Germany has freedom? Take a look at their free speech laws. Same with Canada and nearly every other nation.

Wait, Canada is not free? Whoulda knew. Of course, given that we have had gay marriage for well over a decade now, I would say that we are freer than the US on that note. Also, given that we have a national healthcare system, I would say that we are freer from crushing debt caused by a sudden illness as well. I would also say that we are freer on racism and discrimination based on religious beliefs as well.

Of course, if you believe that allowing hate speech is an important part of a free society, go for it. I still am not sure how the existence laws restricting speech can be used to determine that a country is free or not. You will have to go into more details than that. For example, in the US, you have laws restricting speech. You can't yell "Fire" in a crowded theatre, for example. I guess, by your definition, that makes US not a free country??

Do the Canadians have cattle pens where they herd protesters that are euphemistically called "free speech zones"?

Seth wrote:

Sigh. Cheeba failed to make any points that were even remotely worth responding to. Why do I wake up to 20+ replies of troll food?

Don't know, but seeing the same thing in multiple threads is getting old.

Dimmerswitch wrote:

Your response was to haphazardly mention the Internet, the moon landing, the assembly line, the Wright Brothers, and Edison.

And, you know, most of mankind's greatest inventions.

perhaps at the very least we need a different thread?

Perhaps. Feel free. Starting a new thread to argue that America is a great nation seems like junior high level social studies, to me. It'd be like arguing that bacon is great. On both issues it's only a radical fringe that would disagree.

Seth wrote:

Sigh. Cheeba failed to make any points that were even remotely worth responding to. Why do I wake up to 20+ replies of troll food?

And this post is entirely worthwhile, right, Seth?

cheeba wrote:
Dimmerswitch wrote:

Your response was to haphazardly mention the Internet, the moon landing, the assembly line, the Wright Brothers, and Edison.

And, you know, most of mankind's greatest inventions.

perhaps at the very least we need a different thread?

Perhaps. Feel free. Starting a new thread to argue that America is a great nation seems like junior high level social studies, to me. It'd be like arguing that bacon is great. On both issues it's only a radical fringe that would disagree.

Seth wrote:

Sigh. Cheeba failed to make any points that were even remotely worth responding to. Why do I wake up to 20+ replies of troll food?

And this post is entirely worthwhile, right, Seth?

The problem with that assessment is that great public works projects like the Internet, the moon landing, the interstate highway system, or the Hoover Dam have historically required (and still do) the heroic intervention of the central government to achieve. And in order to do these things, the extraction of capital from taxpayers and/or the borrowing of money in the selling of bonds becomes absolutely vital.

Both the spending and the taxing are universally decried by current Republicans as "socialist" unless they constitute a direct transfer payment from the taxpayer to a billionaire business for the purpose of murdering 3000+ American servicemen in some craphole in a Middle Eastern desert.

cheeba wrote:
Jonman wrote:

Firstly a citation that shows that this country is "great", then another one that shows that it's because of capitalism.

Which is to say, if you believe your own rhetoric, then you should be worried. Because your underlying hypothesis, that it's the self-evident truth that America is great thanks to capitalism is seriously, seriously flawed.

Which proves my assertion that this forum is socialist-left leaning :).

Interesting historical note: the website was originally named Gamers with Jobs, Decent Educations, and Fairly Broad Life Experience, but the URL was too long.

cheeba wrote:

Are you seriously questioning whether the country that invented the internet, that put a man on the moon (famously beating socialists, none of which have been capable of performing this feat, over 40 years now since we did it), is great? Or that it was capitalism behind what are most of mankind's greatest inventions? The assembly line? The Wright brothers? Edison?

I'm 37 and none of these things happened in my lifetime.

H.P. Lovesauce wrote:

Interesting historical note: the website was originally named Gamers with Jobs, Decent Educations, and Fairly Broad Life Experience, but the URL was too long.

That and goodjerdefable really doesn't roll off the tongue.

OK, I'd like to retract my previous supposition that it could be argued that cheeba is a prick, and replace it with the hypothetical that the rest of us might be pricks for actually taking his bait.

I think Cheeba liked it better when we were more socialist.IMAGE(http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/dfadf.png)

Paleocon wrote:

The problem with that assessment is that great public works projects like the Internet, the moon landing, the interstate highway system, or the Hoover Dam have historically required (and still do) the heroic intervention of the central government to achieve. And in order to do these things, the extraction of capital from taxpayers and/or the borrowing of money in the selling of bonds becomes absolutely vital.

I understand that view, but without capitalism there wouldn't be much capital to extract.

H.P. Lovesauce wrote:

Interesting historical note: the website was originally named Gamers with Jobs, Decent Educations, and Fairly Broad Life Experience, but the URL was too long.

I'm not seeing much evidence of decent education or broad life experience when posts like this are so common:

nel e nel wrote:

OK, I'd like to retract my previous supposition that it could be argued that cheeba is a prick, and replace it with the hypothetical that the rest of us might be pricks for actually taking his bait.

cheeba wrote:

I understand that view, but without capitalism there wouldn't be much capital to extract.

Wouldn't it have just been withheld?

cheeba wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

The problem with that assessment is that great public works projects like the Internet, the moon landing, the interstate highway system, or the Hoover Dam have historically required (and still do) the heroic intervention of the central government to achieve. And in order to do these things, the extraction of capital from taxpayers and/or the borrowing of money in the selling of bonds becomes absolutely vital.

I understand that view, but without capitalism there wouldn't be much capital to extract.

H.P. Lovesauce wrote:

Interesting historical note: the website was originally named Gamers with Jobs, Decent Educations, and Fairly Broad Life Experience, but the URL was too long.

I'm not seeing much evidence of decent education or broad life experience when posts like this are so common:

nel e nel wrote:

OK, I'd like to retract my previous supposition that it could be argued that cheeba is a prick, and replace it with the hypothetical that the rest of us might be pricks for actually taking his bait.

Considering most of your arguments are of the same junior high level of education that you decried upthread, you should feel in good company.

cheeba wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

The problem with that assessment is that great public works projects like the Internet, the moon landing, the interstate highway system, or the Hoover Dam have historically required (and still do) the heroic intervention of the central government to achieve. And in order to do these things, the extraction of capital from taxpayers and/or the borrowing of money in the selling of bonds becomes absolutely vital.

I understand that view, but without capitalism there wouldn't be much capital to extract.

And even the most ardent of progressives in the Democratic party don't disagree with the benefits of capitalism as an engine of wealth creation. There are no Marxists anywhere within reach of a voting booth.

The frame of the debate, at this point, seems to be whether or not the government should have any role at all in determining policy on such things as industry, jobs, infrastructure, etc. or if we should dismantle the government and allow all decisions to be determined by enormously powerful multinational corporations. The Democratic Party seems to be in disagreement regarding the line to draw on the former. The GOP seems united in its dedication to the latter.

Even that I might disagree with, Paleo. There are some anarcho-capitalists in the GOP but mostly I see people who viciously abuse government to protect their pet corporations vs actual capitalists.

Seth wrote:

Even that I might disagree with, Paleo. There are some anarcho-capitalists in the GOP but mostly I see people who viciously abuse government to protect their pet corporations vs actual capitalists.

I think "actual capitalism" has always been about defending those with capital, while chucking nominally free markets at the working class. Government protectionism is a defining, by-design feature of the system.

Paleocon wrote:

There are no Marxists anywhere within reach of a voting booth.

Sure there are. Any time there's a union strike there are actual Marxists going out to the line to hand out communist propaganda. It's hilarious. And I guarantee there are many people on this forum that would be for pure socialism. I bet there are a couple who would love to go pure communist as well. Scary stuff.

The frame of the debate, at this point, seems to be whether or not the government should have any role at all in determining policy on such things as industry, jobs, infrastructure, etc. or if we should dismantle the government and allow all decisions to be determined by enormously powerful multinational corporations. The Democratic Party seems to be in disagreement regarding the line to draw on the former. The GOP seems united in its dedication to the latter.

Nah, you're going a bit too far with the hyperbole. R's believe in government, just limited government. If you look at the last R in the presidency you'll see a man very much in favor of big government, heh.

nel e nel wrote:

Considering most of your arguments are of the same junior high level of education that you decried upthread, you should feel in good company.

And yet all you can manage to counter my junior high level education is insults. I'm not going around to every thread and insulting you, I don't understand why you are incapable of extending me the same courtesy.

cheeba wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

There are no Marxists anywhere within reach of a voting booth.

Sure there are. Any time there's a union strike there are actual Marxists going out to the line to hand out communist propaganda. It's hilarious. And I guarantee there are many people on this forum that would be for pure socialism. I bet there are a couple who would love to go pure communist as well. Scary stuff.

The frame of the debate, at this point, seems to be whether or not the government should have any role at all in determining policy on such things as industry, jobs, infrastructure, etc. or if we should dismantle the government and allow all decisions to be determined by enormously powerful multinational corporations. The Democratic Party seems to be in disagreement regarding the line to draw on the former. The GOP seems united in its dedication to the latter.

Nah, you're going a bit too far with the hyperbole. R's believe in government, just limited government. If you look at the last R in the presidency you'll see a man very much in favor of big government, heh.

nel e nel wrote:

Considering most of your arguments are of the same junior high level of education that you decried upthread, you should feel in good company.

And yet all you can manage to counter my junior high level education is insults. I'm not going around to every thread and insulting you, I don't understand why you are incapable of extending me the same courtesy.

The fact that any sort of "big project" that doesn't involve squandering the lives of 3000+ American servicemen in some craphole in the Middle East is politically impossible tells me otherwise. When saving collapsing bridges is shouted down as "socialism", this country has shifted so far to the Right that the word "socialism" has lost any real descriptive meaning.

Paleocon wrote:

The fact that any sort of "big project" that doesn't involve squandering the lives of 3000+ American servicemen in some craphole in the Middle East is politically impossible tells me otherwise. When saving collapsing bridges is shouted down as "socialism", this country has shifted so far to the Right that the word "socialism" has lost any real descriptive meaning.

It's a weird matter of a "what do they say" vs "what do they do". The Republican Party's mission statement very certainly has "limited government" in the profile, and the on-and-on rhetoric of that Party's politicians also very certainly includes it. So it's fair to take them to task for not living up to that ideal, despite pragmatic minds understanding it's inevitable. But, at the end, "government waste" is just like "activist judges" - code for "something happened *I* didn't like, but may or may not be logically consistent with what I have or haven't liked before".

I do agree "socialism" is one of those words the vast majority of Americans toss around without really understanding what it means. This thread has been a good example of that. It's also been a good example of something losing all meaning, as I'm curious what this has to do with the OP.

Paleocon wrote:

The fact that any sort of "big project" that doesn't involve squandering the lives of 3000+ American servicemen in some craphole in the Middle East is politically impossible tells me otherwise.

Obamacare. Well, it's kinda happening, but still ;).

cheeba wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

There are no Marxists anywhere within reach of a voting booth.

Sure there are. Any time there's a union strike there are actual Marxists going out to the line to hand out communist propaganda. It's hilarious. And I guarantee there are many people on this forum that would be for pure socialism. I bet there are a couple who would love to go pure communist as well. Scary stuff.

So, maybe this will clear up some confusions. What exactly do you mean by "pure socialism" and "pure communism"?

I think he means he doesn't understand that socialism exists on a scale between pure capitalism and pure communism.

cheeba wrote:

And I guarantee there are many people on this forum that would be for pure socialism. I bet there are a couple who would love to go pure communist as well. Scary stuff.

IMAGE(http://retired.talkingpointsmemo.com/assets_c/2012/08/McCarthy-Joe-8-2-12-cropped-proto-custom_28.jpg)

cheeba wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

There are no Marxists anywhere within reach of a voting booth.

Sure there are. Any time there's a union strike there are actual Marxists going out to the line to hand out communist propaganda. It's hilarious. And I guarantee there are many people on this forum that would be for pure socialism. I bet there are a couple who would love to go pure communist as well. Scary stuff.

No more scary than the oligarchy that one branch of the Republican party would like to see emerge. Or the theocracy that another group would love. I know it goes against your party's platform, but believe it or not it's okay for people to have differing view points - and even for them to vote.

Jayhawker wrote:

I think he means he doesn't understand that socialism exists on a scale between pure capitalism and pure communism.

If that were true why would I use a scale and say there are more socialists than communists? I agree that "pure socialism" is probably not a great term, but it was an attempt at keeping things simple, and was mostly a polite way of saying that on the bell curve that is the political spectrum, there is a good number of people here skiing down the double black diamond part of that curve on the left, while there are probably a couple people already at the bottom ;).

billt721 wrote:

I know it goes against your party's platform, but believe it or not it's okay for people to have differing view points - and even for them to vote.

I am not a Republican. I'm a libertarian. I even voted for Obama once (he didn't earn my 2nd vote). And I never said being a socialist or a communist was bad. I disagree with them, but as you see I disagree with a lot of people. And you might want to tell others on this forum that it's ok to have differing viewpoints, because I'm often insulted for having one :).

Would you care to explain what you believe "capitalism", "communism", and "socialism" mean, then?

Darn.

Another thread that the opening topic looked interesting but has now become a 'discussion' with one person.