Oprah For President

by veya_victaous Mon Jan 08, 2018 10:45 pm

First topic message reminder :

I'm not endorsing Oprah Winfrey for president, yet.

But I think it's time for some backlash to the backlash - and time to reflect on some reasons why she might, if she were to run, prove to be the right person to lead the country.

American politics currently suffers from a trust and empathy gap. So many voters believe at least one political party doesn't care about them or their concerns. That the party prioritises other Americans over them.

A lot of people feel this way about both parties.

Our politics might be greatly improved through leadership from someone who is talented at reaching and empathising with a broad swath of Americans, across lines of race, class, and income. A leader who enormous numbers of Americans could feel relates to them personally, understands their concerns, and cares about them.

Who has more experience at this kind of mass empathy than Oprah Winfrey?

More at source
http://www.msn.com/en-au/news/world/comment-oprah-might-be-the-president-america-needs-right-now/ar-BBI8oFP?ocid=ientp

by veya_victaous Tue Jan 09, 2018 3:53 am

Smelly seems to be under the misunderstanding that Socialism is one and the same as Communism.
a common mistake among uneducated easily brainwashed plebs.

by veya_victaous Tue Jan 09, 2018 3:57 am

smelly-bandit wrote:Oh and I love how you're suddenly a fan of jesus when you think you can use him to prove your point normally you're spitting on him when it suits you.

Hypocrisy much??

I spit on Christians not Jesus (that if he did exist seems like a real Liberal Progressive Radical)

Remember Jesus didn't say, "Suck my dick while praising my name". but Jesus said to try and emulate his kindness and charity to his fellow man. Wink

by 'Wolfie Tue Jan 09, 2018 3:59 am

smelly-bandit wrote:
Original Quill wrote:I've got a problem with her. We'll see how it shakes out.

That's sexist

And racist

You're sexist...

And racist to boot..

And stupid, on top of that.

by 'Wolfie Tue Jan 09, 2018 4:11 am

Maddog wrote:
veya_victaous wrote:

well most people with morals like helping your fellow citizen, would like socialism

And Oprah's childhood gives her a good understanding of why having a system of socially funded protections is beneficial for society, since I am sure she is aware that not everyone can be as lucky as her.

I don't know if she like socialism. She likes helping people, which has nothing to do with socialism.

Hasn't been very helpful for the people of Venezuela.

Venezuela isn't a proper "socialist democracy", as such...

But rather, a broken autocracy, run by a dictatorial self-declared "Marxist" multimillionaire, whose government has neglected the country's Agricultural and Manufacturing/Secondary sectors, while concentrating on over-drilling and exporting their crude oil reserves..

Whose gov't is largely funded by multinational oil corporations..

And where the USA buys half of Venezuela's annual oil exports !

by 'Wolfie Tue Jan 09, 2018 4:18 am

Maddog wrote:
veya_victaous wrote:

and do you really not know how people get the money they pay in taxes?

Do you not understand how money exists? the US dollar is not Bitcoins

Yes I know where money comes from. And I know where the government gets there money to spend. Any more questions?

I have a question for you, Maddog...

Who do you believe 'owns' a country's natural resources ?

1st clue : it is not the corporations who pay a license fee to extract that wealth; nor is it the scheming, exploitive and usurious billionaires who control those corporations..

by Guest Tue Jan 09, 2018 4:43 am

veya_victaous wrote:Smelly seems to be under the misunderstanding that Socialism is one and the same as Communism.
a common mistake among uneducated easily brainwashed plebs.

You best tell the socialists that since they are the ones waving hammer and sickle flags at their socialist rallies.

No, veya_victaous it seems you like most deluded fools who praise socialism, are confused.

I had this argument with Quill and I have no doubt will struggle on the next questions as much as he did

Which of the top 10 economies in the world are socialist economies??

Name a single successful socialist country.

Answers on a pin head

by Guest Tue Jan 09, 2018 4:45 am

veya_victaous wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:Oh and I love how you're suddenly a fan of jesus when you think you can use him to prove your point normally you're spitting on him when it suits you.

Hypocrisy much??

I spit on Christians not Jesus (that if he did exist seems like a real Liberal Progressive Radical)

Remember Jesus didn't say, "Suck my dick while praising my name". but Jesus said to try and emulate his kindness and charity to his fellow man.

You mean like your earlier example of morality which you attribute to socialism when in reality it's a Christian value not a socialist one.

Socialist class are pretty hostile, ask the Venezuelans

by Guest Tue Jan 09, 2018 4:47 am

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:
Maddog wrote:

I don't know if she like socialism. She likes helping people, which has nothing to do with socialism.

Hasn't been very helpful for the people of Venezuela.

Venezuela isn't a proper "socialist democracy", as such...

But rather, a broken autocracy, run by a dictatorial self-declared "Marxist" multimillionaire, whose government has neglected the country's Agricultural and Manufacturing/Secondary sectors, while concentrating on over-drilling and exporting their crude oil reserves..

Whose gov't is largely funded by multinational oil corporations..

And where the USA buys half of Venezuela's annual oil exports !

So where is a proper socialist democracy??

You socialists sound like Muslims

Everytime they see Islam in action they declare it to be "not proper Islam"

Everytime you see socialism in action you declared it to be "not proper socialism"

It's a symptom of chronic denial

by veya_victaous Tue Jan 09, 2018 5:03 am

smelly-bandit wrote:
veya_victaous wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:Oh and I love how you're suddenly a fan of jesus when you think you can use him to prove your point normally you're spitting on him when it suits you.

Hypocrisy much??

I spit on Christians not Jesus (that if he did exist seems like a real Liberal Progressive Radical)

Remember Jesus didn't say, "Suck my dick while praising my name". but Jesus said to try and emulate his kindness and charity to his fellow man.

You mean like your earlier example of morality which you attribute to socialism when in reality it's a Christian value not a socialist one.

Socialist class are pretty hostile, ask the Venezuelans

Umm, it's a secular socialist values in government. As proposed by Voltaire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltaire

And Notice that all your examples are of Corrupt nations? maybe that is the common cause rather than the 'Bogey man Socialist' that you have bene brainwashed into believing is the enemy.

Socialist Leaning Mixed market economies Include Australia and the UK. DO you think the UK is failure? Do you hate the UK?

And Yes Anyone that CLAIMS to follow the teaching of Jesus should be Staunchly socialist since to support Capitalism is to spit in the face of Jesus (until he chases you with a whip) why do you hate Jesus's teaching so much Smelly?

by veya_victaous Tue Jan 09, 2018 5:07 am

smelly-bandit wrote:
veya_victaous wrote:Smelly seems to be under the misunderstanding that Socialism is one and the same as Communism.
a common mistake among uneducated easily brainwashed plebs.

You best tell the socialists that since they are the ones waving hammer and sickle flags at their socialist rallies.

No, veya_victaous it seems you like most deluded fools who praise socialism, are confused.

I had this argument with Quill and I have no doubt will struggle on the next questions as much as he did

Which of the top 10 economies in the world are socialist economies??

Name a single successful socialist country.

Answers on a pin head

name a single nation without socialist policies? Rolling Eyes

You will find there is none, all the successful economies are variants of 'mixed market economics', the Biggest and most successful being the communist based hugely socialist leaning economy of China Cool

by 'Wolfie Tue Jan 09, 2018 5:34 am

smelly-bandit wrote:
WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Venezuela isn't a proper "socialist democracy", as such...

But rather, a broken autocracy, run by a dictatorial self-declared "Marxist" multimillionaire, whose government has neglected the country's Agricultural and Manufacturing/Secondary sectors, while concentrating on over-drilling and exporting their crude oil reserves..

Whose gov't is largely funded by multinational oil corporations..

And where the USA buys half of Venezuela's annual oil exports !

So where is a proper socialist democracy??

You socialists sound like Muslims

Everytime they see Islam in action they declare it to be "not proper Islam"

Everytime you see socialism in action you declared it to be "not proper socialism"

It's a symptom of chronic denial

Your brain is the #1 chronic denialist on NF, SmellyNoClue...

It keeps on denying your obvious lack of intelligence..

by Original Quill Tue Jan 09, 2018 4:26 pm

sb wrote:You best tell the socialists that since they are the ones waving hammer and sickle flags at their socialist rallies.

You're so gullible. If I wore a red uniform and declared I was General Big Time, would you salute me? People make crap up, and borrow tags with no reason.

Did you know that east Germany called itself the German Democratic Republic? There goes democracy, eh?

Venezuela is a corrupt state, run by oligarchs. The 'socialist' part is a scam.

by Guest Tue Jan 09, 2018 4:38 pm

Original Quill wrote:
sb wrote:You best tell the socialists that since they are the ones waving hammer and sickle flags at their socialist rallies.

You're so gullible. If I wore a red uniform and declared I was General Big Time, would you salute me? People make crap up, and borrow tags with no reason.

Did you know that east Germany called itself the German Democratic Republic? There goes democracy, eh?

Venezuela is a corrupt state, run by oligarchs. The 'socialist' part is a scam.

oh

you mean some people might say one thing but actually be doing something else??

like they might call themselves white supremacist but actually be antifa??

so in theory the attack at charlottesville could have been a false flag operation run by left wing antifa liberals to try and bring pressure on white supremacist groups??

interesting

by Guest Tue Jan 09, 2018 4:40 pm

veya_victaous wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:

You best tell the socialists that since they are the ones waving hammer and sickle flags at their socialist rallies.

No, veya_victaous it seems you like most deluded fools who praise socialism, are confused.

I had this argument with Quill and I have no doubt will struggle on the next questions as much as he did

Which of the top 10 economies in the world are socialist economies??

Name a single successful socialist country.

Answers on a pin head

name a single nation without socialist policies?

You will find there is none, all the successful economies are variants of 'mixed market economics', the Biggest and most successful being the communist based hugely socialist leaning economy of China

yeahs there are elements of socialism in a lot of capitalist countries, like the NHS which is crumbling and has just cancelled 50k worth of operations because it cannot cope

that's all anyone needs to know about how good socialism is

by Original Quill Tue Jan 09, 2018 4:44 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

You're so gullible. If I wore a red uniform and declared I was General Big Time, would you salute me? People make crap up, and borrow tags with no reason.

Did you know that east Germany called itself the German Democratic Republic? There goes democracy, eh?

Venezuela is a corrupt state, run by oligarchs. The 'socialist' part is a scam.

oh

you mean some people might say one thing but actually be doing something else??

like they might call themselves white supremacist but actually be antifa??

Are you asking me if people like Donald "pussy-grabber" Trump are liars? Yes, crooks tell lies to distort what they are doing. That's true for corrupt and conservative politicians, too.

by Maddog Tue Jan 09, 2018 4:52 pm

veya_victaous wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:

I think you're confusing socialist values with Christian values, helping your fellow man is a Christian attribute.

Socialism is primarily a system of economic ownership not morality.

Maybe people like socialism because they too are confusing it with Christianity, most people who actually live under socialist governments despise it.

Ask the Venezuelans.

But the point I was actually making was that Oprah was made wealthy under capitalism yet likes socialism, under which she would be just as poor as everyone else.

lol
good post highlighting you don't know what socialism is

everyone does NOT earn the same in Socialism,
Socialism is merely government revenue being used to fund public services.

Christianity is not about helping your fellow man either, Jesus may have said to do that, but Christians Don't do that.
And Jesus was clearly socialist
What Would Jesus Do, to greedy money lovers that put Capitalistic practices first?
He would Turn their shops fronts over Tipping their tills and goods on the ground and then chase them around with a whip.

You need to Google socialism. You are confising it with the welfare state. The Scandinavians have free market capitalism with a fairly robust welfare state. Venezuela is socialist because the government controls the means of production. Wink

by Original Quill Tue Jan 09, 2018 5:06 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:
veya_victaous wrote:

name a single nation without socialist policies?

You will find there is none, all the successful economies are variants of 'mixed market economics', the Biggest and most successful being the communist based hugely socialist leaning economy of China

yeahs there are elements of socialism in a lot of capitalist countries, like the NHS which is crumbling and has just cancelled 50k worth of operations because it cannot cope

that's all anyone needs to know about how good socialism is

You have no idea what socialism is. You have this idea that if it's associated with government, it's socialism. Political theory has to do with governments.

Socialism is an economic theory. It has to do with people acting collectively to make up for the demand of industrialism for greater, more expensive tooling. Corporate capitalism is one way to act collectively to amass the resources for industrial production. Socialism is just another way to act collectively for the same purposes. Imagine that: capitalism is a bunch of commies! Shocked

The collective entity need not be a corporation or a government. Czechoslovakia, in 1968, experimented with workers councils...until the Soviet Union quashed it. The concept is economics, and economics has to do with the distribution of resources.

Just because a group of oligarchs decide to wrap themselves in the shroud of a name, does not mean that they operate according to the definition.

by Maddog Tue Jan 09, 2018 5:14 pm

Definition of socialism. 1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.

by Original Quill Tue Jan 09, 2018 6:10 pm

Maddog wrote:Definition of socialism. 1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.

True. Socialism eventually had to deal with politics--look at the antagonisms between the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks, Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia, all having to do with merging the two. Marx took this clash head-on. He viewed socialism as a world-wide movement that would eventually consume politics. Some sort of Hegelian spirit would come down and evaporate all need for politics. That was the reason for the Internationals (comintern):

Wiki wrote:The COMINTERN intended to "struggle by all available means, including armed force, for the overthrow of the international bourgeoisie and the creation of an international Soviet republic as a transition stage to the complete abolition of the state".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_International (italics mine)

I mean, a state cannot tolerate a power higher than itself, so theorists of the 19th-century foresaw the eventual clash. That was the difference between Marx and earlier, largely Utopian socialists.

All of this arises out of a monumental change that came in production in the 18th century: industrialization. Industrialization removed the tools from the artisan (worker), and created a demand for some sort of collective response to amass the wealth by which to afford the tools, and carry on production. One form of collectivization was corporate capitalism; another was socialism; both were forms of collectivization.

But, it remains that socialism, dealing with distribution of resources, is an economic theory; democracy, autocracy, etc., dealing with authoritative power, are political theories. Communism, a type of government and economic order, was meant to be a bridge to freedom from all authority. Look up the Paris Commune. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Commune

by Guest Tue Jan 09, 2018 6:32 pm

Original Quill wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:

yeahs there are elements of socialism in a lot of capitalist countries, like the NHS which is crumbling and has just cancelled 50k worth of operations because it cannot cope

that's all anyone needs to know about how good socialism is

You have no idea what socialism is. You have this idea that if it's associated with government, it's socialism. Political theory has to do with governments.

Socialism is an economic theory. It has to do with people acting collectively to make up for the demand of industrialism for greater, more expensive tooling. Corporate capitalism is one way to act collectively to amass the resources for industrial production. Socialism is just another way to act collectively for the same purposes. Imagine that: capitalism is a bunch of commies!

The collective entity need not be a corporation or a government. Czechoslovakia, in 1968, experimented with workers councils...until the Soviet Union quashed it. The concept is economics, and economics has to do with the distribution of resources.

Just because a group of oligarchs decide to wrap themselves in the shroud of a name, does not mean that they operate according to the definition.

We had done this argument to death and you lost.

Your socialist fantasy falls apart when the finger points at Venezuela as an example

Your response "that's not proper socialism" even dyed in the wool socialist Jeremy Corbyn pointed at Venezuela as a socialist success.

Its just so ridiculous that it borders on a comedy sketch

by Maddog Tue Jan 09, 2018 6:36 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

You have no idea what socialism is. You have this idea that if it's associated with government, it's socialism. Political theory has to do with governments.

Socialism is an economic theory. It has to do with people acting collectively to make up for the demand of industrialism for greater, more expensive tooling. Corporate capitalism is one way to act collectively to amass the resources for industrial production. Socialism is just another way to act collectively for the same purposes. Imagine that: capitalism is a bunch of commies!

The collective entity need not be a corporation or a government. Czechoslovakia, in 1968, experimented with workers councils...until the Soviet Union quashed it. The concept is economics, and economics has to do with the distribution of resources.

Just because a group of oligarchs decide to wrap themselves in the shroud of a name, does not mean that they operate according to the definition.

We had done this argument to death and you lost.

Your socialist fantasy falls apart when the finger points at Venezuela as an example

Your response "that's not proper socialism" even dyed in the wool socialist Jeremy Corbyn pointed at Venezuela as a socialist success.

Its just so ridiculous that it borders on a comedy sketch

Bernie Sanders was singing the praises of socialist Venezuela just a few years ago too.

I guess during the temporary periods that socialism works, it's real socialism, but as soon as the wheels start falling off it's fake socialism?

by Original Quill Tue Jan 09, 2018 6:38 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

You have no idea what socialism is. You have this idea that if it's associated with government, it's socialism. Political theory has to do with governments.

Socialism is an economic theory. It has to do with people acting collectively to make up for the demand of industrialism for greater, more expensive tooling. Corporate capitalism is one way to act collectively to amass the resources for industrial production. Socialism is just another way to act collectively for the same purposes. Imagine that: capitalism is a bunch of commies!

The collective entity need not be a corporation or a government. Czechoslovakia, in 1968, experimented with workers councils...until the Soviet Union quashed it. The concept is economics, and economics has to do with the distribution of resources.

Just because a group of oligarchs decide to wrap themselves in the shroud of a name, does not mean that they operate according to the definition.

We had done this argument to death and you lost.

Your socialist fantasy falls apart when the finger points at Venezuela as an example

Your response "that's not proper socialism" even dyed in the wool socialist Jeremy Corbyn pointed at Venezuela as a socialist success.

Its just so ridiculous that it borders on a comedy sketch

Other people can lie too. Look at the people who agree with Trumpian lies for political reasons.

No...I'm as correct today as when we last discussed this. I'm not responsible for what Corbyn says.

by Original Quill Tue Jan 09, 2018 6:40 pm

Maddog wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:

We had done this argument to death and you lost.

Your socialist fantasy falls apart when the finger points at Venezuela as an example

Your response "that's not proper socialism" even dyed in the wool socialist Jeremy Corbyn pointed at Venezuela as a socialist success.

Its just so ridiculous that it borders on a comedy sketch

Bernie Sanders was singing the praises of socialist Venezuela just a few years ago too.

I guess during the temporary periods that socialism works, it's real socialism, but as soon as the wheels start falling off it's fake socialism?

Nor am I responsible for Bernie Sanders. We've been talking theory here, not endorsements. I daresay Sanders never spoke to Marx.

by Maddog Tue Jan 09, 2018 6:43 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Maddog wrote:

Bernie Sanders was singing the praises of socialist Venezuela just a few years ago too.

I guess during the temporary periods that socialism works, it's real socialism, but as soon as the wheels start falling off it's fake socialism?

Nor am I responsible for Bernie Sanders. We've been talking theory here, not endorsements. I daresay Sanders never spoke to Marx.

Venezuela is a socialist country. It's government took over private property and controls the means of production. Socialism is a killer.

by Original Quill Tue Jan 09, 2018 6:56 pm

Maddog wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Nor am I responsible for Bernie Sanders. We've been talking theory here, not endorsements. I daresay Sanders never spoke to Marx.

Venezuela is a socialist country. It's government took over private property and controls the means of production. Socialism is a killer.

Correction. Venezuela is a corrupt country. Socialism has a distinct meaning, which doesn't include corruption. Libertarianism is lawlessness, and therefore responsible for allowing totalitarian regimes like Venezuela.

by Guest Tue Jan 09, 2018 7:12 pm

Maddog wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:

We had done this argument to death and you lost.

Your socialist fantasy falls apart when the finger points at Venezuela as an example

Your response "that's not proper socialism" even dyed in the wool socialist Jeremy Corbyn pointed at Venezuela as a socialist success.

Its just so ridiculous that it borders on a comedy sketch

Bernie Sanders was singing the praises of socialist Venezuela just a few years ago too.

I guess during the temporary periods that socialism works, it's real socialism, but as soon as the wheels start falling off it's fake socialism?

Now you're getting the hang of how the moral relativism works.

Socialism appears to have the same hold on the mind that religion does.

Its seems to form a part of an individuals identity which cannot be separated out.

Its too interlaced through their psyche, and any threat to its unalterable truth must be ignored dismissed or assimilated

I see similarities between Muslims and socialists

ISIS were Muslims and they had a caliphate, yet Muslims in the western world will say they weren't proper Muslims and it wasn't a proper caliphate, they even say the Saudi Arabia, which is in essence the Muslim version of the Vatican, doesn't practice "proper Islam", they also struggle to point to a country proper Islam is practiced.

Socialists as we are bearing horrified witness to, act in a very similar way, they praise socialism but when presented with working examples of socialism they employ the same tactics as Muslims do and declare that its not proper "socialism" and then fail miserably to point out where proper socialism is practiced successfully.

Venezuela is to socialists what ISIS is to Muslims.

Religion is a powerful influence that can easily hijack the mind of the unwary, but what is it about the idea of socialism that lures the naive and gullible into its murky depths??

by Maddog Tue Jan 09, 2018 7:18 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Maddog wrote:

Venezuela is a socialist country. It's government took over private property and controls the means of production. Socialism is a killer.

Correction. Venezuela is a corrupt country. Socialism has a distinct meaning, which doesn't include corruption. Libertarianism is lawlessness, and therefore responsible for allowing totalitarian regimes like Venezuela.

Well duh. Corruption and government control go hand in hand.

BTW, totalitarianism and libertarianism are polar fucking opposites.

You're a complete idiot.

by Guest Tue Jan 09, 2018 7:28 pm

Original Quill wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:

We had done this argument to death and you lost.

Your socialist fantasy falls apart when the finger points at Venezuela as an example

Your response "that's not proper socialism" even dyed in the wool socialist Jeremy Corbyn pointed at Venezuela as a socialist success.

Its just so ridiculous that it borders on a comedy sketch

Other people can lie too. Look at the people who agree with Trumpian lies for political reasons.

No...I'm as correct today as when we last discussed this. I'm not responsible for what Corbyn says.

I'm not saying you're responsible for Corbyn.

But you seem to have no problem saying trump is a white supremacist on the basis of the kkk voicing their support for his presidency.

But you struggle to accept that Venezuela is a socialist state when well known self declared socialists like Corbyn and sanders express their support for Venezuelan socialism.

Seems you apply separate rules when it's convenient

by Guest Tue Jan 09, 2018 7:29 pm

Maddog wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Correction. Venezuela is a corrupt country. Socialism has a distinct meaning, which doesn't include corruption. Libertarianism is lawlessness, and therefore responsible for allowing totalitarian regimes like Venezuela.

Well duh. Corruption and government control go hand in hand.

BTW, totalitarianism and libertarianism are polar fucking opposites.

You're a complete idiot.

You're just getting pedantic now

by veya_victaous Tue Jan 09, 2018 10:32 pm

Maddog wrote:Definition of socialism. 1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.

the definition should be "goods and services"..
Like the governmental ownership and administration of Healthcare and Education are in the Uk, Australia and Scandinavian countries.

by Maddog Tue Jan 09, 2018 11:47 pm

veya_victaous wrote:
Maddog wrote:Definition of socialism. 1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.

the definition should be "goods and services"..
Like the governmental ownership and administration of Healthcare and Education are in the Uk, Australia and Scandinavian countries.

But not the means of production for all goods.

The US has government provided healthcare and schools. I doubt anyone considers it a socialist economy or government. Scandinavian countries aren't either.

by Maddog Tue Jan 09, 2018 11:50 pm

While speaking at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, the center-right Danish Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen said he was aware "that some people in the U.S. associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism."

"Therefore," he said, "I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy."

Rasmussen acknowledged that "the Nordic model is an expanded welfare state which provides a high level of security to its citizens," but he also noted that it is "a successful market economy with much freedom to pursue your dreams and live your life as you wish."

To that we'll add that Sweden, another of Sanders' inspirations, has for decades quietly moved away from its cradle-to-grave form of government welfare. And the Swedes are better off for having done so, just as the Danes will continue to be better off as their government overhauls its welfare state.

https://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/denmark-tells-bernie-sanders-to-stop-calling-it-socialist/

Denmark uses capitalism to fund it's welfare state. It's not socialist, no matter how much the poorly informed like to claim that it is. Wink

by veya_victaous Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:08 am

Maddog wrote:
veya_victaous wrote:
Maddog wrote:Definition of socialism. 1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.

the definition should be "goods and services"..
Like the governmental ownership and administration of Healthcare and Education are in the Uk, Australia and Scandinavian countries.

But not the means of production for all goods.

The US has government provided healthcare and schools. I doubt anyone considers it a socialist economy or government. Scandinavian countries aren't either.

LOL
no, it doesn't really Wink

If you think that is gov't services no wonder you are anti gov't, the USA has one of the worst Public Health care systems in the developed world.

the USA is one of the most Capitalist leaning Mixed market economies (as I said earlier) while the Scandinavian are among the most socialist leaning Mixed market economies.

And no Not ALL goods(and services), just like Not all goods are controlled by the market either, since all the successful economies are Mixed Market economies (as I have been repeatedly saying in this and many other threads).
what makes Place like Scandinavia, Australia and New Zealand have a higher standard of living than the USA? Our Superior Public services geek

by Maddog Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:14 am

veya_victaous wrote:
Maddog wrote:

But not the means of production for all goods.

The US has government provided healthcare and schools. I doubt anyone considers it a socialist economy or government. Scandinavian countries aren't either.

LOL
no, it doesn't really
If you think that is gov't services no wonder you are anti gov't, the USA has one of the worst Public Health care systems in the developed world.

the USA is one of the most Capitalist leaning Mixed market economies (as I said earlier) while the Scandinavian are among the most socialist leaning Mixed market economies.

And no Not ALL goods(and services), just like Not all goods are controlled by the market either, since all the successful economies are Mixed Market economies (as I have been repeatedly saying in this and many other threads).
what makes Place like Scandinavia, Australia and New Zealand have a higher standard of living than the USA? Our Superior Public services

While speaking at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, the center-right Danish Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen said he was aware "that some people in the U.S. associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism."

"Therefore," he said, "I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy."

Rasmussen acknowledged that "the Nordic model is an expanded welfare state which provides a high level of security to its citizens," but he also noted that it is "a successful market economy with much freedom to pursue your dreams and live your life as you wish."

To that we'll add that Sweden, another of Sanders' inspirations, has for decades quietly moved away from its cradle-to-grave form of government welfare. And the Swedes are better off for having done so, just as the Danes will continue to be better off as their government overhauls its welfare state.

Wink

by Maddog Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:17 am

But you are correct about our government provided healthcare. It's not very good. Not compared to our private healthcare, but that's to be expected.

Same thing is happening in the UK. BUPA is getting very popular.

by Guest Wed Jan 10, 2018 1:21 am

Maddog wrote:But you are correct about our government provided healthcare. It's not very good. Not compared to our private healthcare, but that's to be expected.

Same thing is happening in the UK. BUPA is getting very popular.

That's because the NHS is a socialist ideal.

It espouses that idea that it's free for all because it's owned by all and paid for by all.

On paper and in theory it sounds great,sounds like a right hippy love in, free love for everyone and all that shit, which is probably why so many are attracted to it.

The sad reality is that it doesn't work. The NHS is crumbling because while it is free for all its not paid for by all, so the available supply is not capable of keeping up with the pressures of demand.

The budget is calculated and funding allocated, since the NHS is government owned and therefore of socialist design, it has no ability to generate its own wealth, and is entirely reliant upon government funding.

The hierarchy of the NHS are incompetent and self-serving and the funding is squandered on utter shite instead of being directed into health care.

so when the funding begins to run dry before its replenished it has no way of easing the financial pressures apart from cutting back on the quality and quantity of very service it's designed to to provide.

That's why socialist health care is a killer, like all socialist systems and ideas

Just ask the Venezuelans

by 'Wolfie Wed Jan 10, 2018 1:47 am

Maddog wrote:
veya_victaous wrote:

LOL
no, it doesn't really
If you think that is gov't services no wonder you are anti gov't, the USA has one of the worst Public Health care systems in the developed world.

the USA is one of the most Capitalist leaning Mixed market economies (as I said earlier) while the Scandinavian are among the most socialist leaning Mixed market economies.

And no Not ALL goods(and services), just like Not all goods are controlled by the market either, since all the successful economies are Mixed Market economies (as I have been repeatedly saying in this and many other threads).
what makes Place like Scandinavia, Australia and New Zealand have a higher standard of living than the USA? Our Superior Public services

While speaking at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, the center-right Danish Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen said he was aware "that some people in the U.S. associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism."

"Therefore," he said, "I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy."

Rasmussen acknowledged that "the Nordic model is an expanded welfare state which provides a high level of security to its citizens," but he also noted that it is "a successful market economy with much freedom to pursue your dreams and live your life as you wish."

To that we'll add that Sweden, another of Sanders' inspirations, has for decades quietly moved away from its cradle-to-grave form of government welfare. And the Swedes are better off for having done so, just as the Danes will continue to be better off as their government overhauls its welfare state.

The facts speak for themselves...

When compared with other developed countries in the OECD the USA regularly ranks down in 30th-something place for providing public health and education services; while the likes of Australia, New Zealand, Britain, Sweden and Finland are up around the top 10 countries..

Less than 10% of the hospitals in the USA are publicly-owned and managed; health funds pocket a full 50% of the fees they chage -- compared with 10% or less in other markets in which they also compete; Patient costs in American hospitals are regularly double the price of those in the equivalent institutions in Britain, France, Australia, Canada, New Zealand; Over 30 million Americans don't have access to even moderate healthcare.

Go figure.. Or not...

by 'Wolfie Wed Jan 10, 2018 1:50 am

smelly-bandit wrote:
Maddog wrote:But you are correct about our government provided healthcare. It's not very good. Not compared to our private healthcare, but that's to be expected.

Same thing is happening in the UK. BUPA is getting very popular.

That's because the NHS is a socialist ideal.

It espouses that idea that it's free for all because it's owned by all and paid for by all.

On paper and in theory it sounds great,sounds like a right hippy love in, free love for everyone and all that shit, which is probably why so many are attracted to it.

The sad reality is that it doesn't work. The NHS is crumbling because while it is free for all its not paid for by all, so the available supply is not capable of keeping up with the pressures of demand.

The budget is calculated and funding allocated, since the NHS is government owned and therefore of socialist design, it has no ability to generate its own wealth, and is entirely reliant upon government funding.

The hierarchy of the NHS are incompetent and self-serving and the funding is squandered on utter shite instead of being directed into health care.

so when the funding begins to run dry before its replenished it has no way of easing the financial pressures apart from cutting back on the quality and quantity of very service it's designed to to provide.

That's why socialist health care is a killer, like all socialist systems and ideas

Just ask the Venezuelans

Fuck off with your unreferenced lying shit...

You lowlife SmellyFascistBum' dumkopf..

by 'Wolfie Wed Jan 10, 2018 1:59 am

Maddog wrote:But you are correct about our government provided healthcare. It's not very good. Not compared to our private healthcare, but that's to be expected.

Same thing is happening in the UK. BUPA is getting very popular.

BUPA is an Indian-based health fund; not American..

In Britain and Australia, they operate with a profit margin around 10% -- compared with the 50% profit margin that your corporatist gov't allows healthfunds to pocket..

And even though people paying into those health funds down here are still paying much less than you do over there -- the healthfund customers here are still better off.

Although, there is still always that push from far-right wing pollies to further cripple our health systems, and try and push more public monies into private company pockets -- that exploitive business-oriented greed is always there...

by Guest Wed Jan 10, 2018 2:03 am

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:

That's because the NHS is a socialist ideal.

It espouses that idea that it's free for all because it's owned by all and paid for by all.

On paper and in theory it sounds great,sounds like a right hippy love in, free love for everyone and all that shit, which is probably why so many are attracted to it.

The sad reality is that it doesn't work. The NHS is crumbling because while it is free for all its not paid for by all, so the available supply is not capable of keeping up with the pressures of demand.

The budget is calculated and funding allocated, since the NHS is government owned and therefore of socialist design, it has no ability to generate its own wealth, and is entirely reliant upon government funding.

The hierarchy of the NHS are incompetent and self-serving and the funding is squandered on utter shite instead of being directed into health care.

so when the funding begins to run dry before its replenished it has no way of easing the financial pressures apart from cutting back on the quality and quantity of very service it's designed to to provide.

That's why socialist health care is a killer, like all socialist systems and ideas

Just ask the Venezuelans

Fuck off with your unreferenced lying shit...

You lowlife SmellyFascistBum' dumkopf..

Have you tried viagra??

How longs it been since..... You know?? You were able to do your manky duty??

by Maddog Wed Jan 10, 2018 2:23 am

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:
Maddog wrote:But you are correct about our government provided healthcare. It's not very good. Not compared to our private healthcare, but that's to be expected.

Same thing is happening in the UK. BUPA is getting very popular.

BUPA is an Indian-based health fund; not American..

In Britain and Australia, they operate with a profit margin around 10% -- compared with the 50% profit margin that your corporatist gov't allows healthfunds to pocket..

And even though people paying into those health funds down here are still paying much less than you do over there -- the healthfund customers here are still better off.

Although, there is still always that push from far-right wing pollies to further cripple our health systems, and try and push more public monies into private company pockets -- that exploitive business-oriented greed is always there...

I never said it was American.

What I said is people are turning to it more because what the government provides is no longer adequate.

Much like our VA system, which is horrendous.

by veya_victaous Wed Jan 10, 2018 2:41 am

Maddog wrote:
veya_victaous wrote:
Maddog wrote:

But not the means of production for all goods.

The US has government provided healthcare and schools. I doubt anyone considers it a socialist economy or government. Scandinavian countries aren't either.

LOL
no, it doesn't really
If you think that is gov't services no wonder you are anti gov't, the USA has one of the worst Public Health care systems in the developed world.

the USA is one of the most Capitalist leaning Mixed market economies (as I said earlier) while the Scandinavian are among the most socialist leaning Mixed market economies.

And no Not ALL goods(and services), just like Not all goods are controlled by the market either, since all the successful economies are Mixed Market economies (as I have been repeatedly saying in this and many other threads).
what makes Place like Scandinavia, Australia and New Zealand have a higher standard of living than the USA? Our Superior Public services

While speaking at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, the center-right Danish Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen said he was aware "that some people in the U.S. associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism."

"Therefore," he said, "I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy."

Rasmussen acknowledged that "the Nordic model is an expanded welfare state which provides a high level of security to its citizens," but he also noted that it is "a successful market economy with much freedom to pursue your dreams and live your life as you wish."

To that we'll add that Sweden, another of Sanders' inspirations, has for decades quietly moved away from its cradle-to-grave form of government welfare. And the Swedes are better off for having done so, just as the Danes will continue to be better off as their government overhauls its welfare state.

You realise that Supports What I said Cool

it's a mixed market economy NOT Capitalist, all those Welfare Policies Fall under the Socialist policy spectrum.

by Original Quill Wed Jan 10, 2018 4:12 am

Maddog wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Correction. Venezuela is a corrupt country. Socialism has a distinct meaning, which doesn't include corruption. Libertarianism is lawlessness, and therefore responsible for allowing totalitarian regimes like Venezuela.

Well duh. Corruption and government control go hand in hand.

BTW, totalitarianism and libertarianism are polar fucking opposites.

You're a complete idiot.

You have been so involved in your Texas bar, that your thinking is polluted with alcohol and southernism.

You are a dumb fuck redneck, so how could you be aware of the deeper theories. Libertarianism is the same as totalitarianism...if you remove all constraints, anything can take over, including a totalitarian system. Haven't you ever left something in the back of the refrigerator? It turns to mold! I've tried to educate you, but you are a southerner...dumb as a fookin' stone.

Any free system is unstable, and inevitably deteriorates into it's worst condition. Laissez-faire economics inevitably deteriorates into monopoly; libertarianism inevitably deteriorates into totalitarianism. If a precious stone lies free on the path, what, do you think someone won't pick it up and take it for his own? Same thing with Laissez-faire markets and political freedom. People will try to dominate and take over...it's human instinct.

You gotta be stupid not to realize that basic law of human motivation.

by Original Quill Wed Jan 10, 2018 4:17 am

smelly-bandit wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Other people can lie too. Look at the people who agree with Trumpian lies for political reasons.

No...I'm as correct today as when we last discussed this. I'm not responsible for what Corbyn says.

I'm not saying you're responsible for Corbyn.

But you seem to have no problem saying trump is a white supremacist on the basis of the kkk voicing their support for his presidency.

No, he supported them.

SB wrote:But you struggle to accept that Venezuela is a socialist state when well known self declared socialists like Corbyn and sanders express their support for Venezuelan socialism.

Seems you apply separate rules when it's convenient

It's very simple, Venezuela is a corrupt state. They can declare themselves gods...but they are what they are.

by Maddog Wed Jan 10, 2018 4:32 am

Original Quill wrote:
Maddog wrote:

Well duh. Corruption and government control go hand in hand.

BTW, totalitarianism and libertarianism are polar fucking opposites.

You're a complete idiot.

You have been so involved in your Texas bar, that your thinking is polluted with alcohol and southernism.

You are a dumb fuck redneck, so how could you be aware of the deeper theories. Libertarianism is the same as totalitarianism...if you remove all constraints, anything can take over, including a totalitarian system. Haven't you ever left something in the back of the refrigerator? It turns to mold! I've tried to educate you, but you are a southerner...dumb as a fookin' stone.

Any free system is unstable, and inevitably deteriorates into it's worst condition. Laissez-faire economics inevitably deteriorates into monopoly; libertarianism inevitably deteriorates into totalitarianism. If a precious stone lies free on the path, what, do you think someone won't pick it up and take it for his own? Same thing with Laissez-faire markets and political freedom. People will try to dominate and take over...it's human instinct.

You gotta be stupid not to realize that basic law of human motivation.

If a totalitarian system rises from anarchy, you have the opposite of libertarianism.

Cool

Oh, and thanks for trying to educate me. Laughing

by Original Quill Wed Jan 10, 2018 4:39 am

Maddog wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

You have been so involved in your Texas bar, that your thinking is polluted with alcohol and southernism.

You are a dumb fuck redneck, so how could you be aware of the deeper theories. Libertarianism is the same as totalitarianism...if you remove all constraints, anything can take over, including a totalitarian system. Haven't you ever left something in the back of the refrigerator? It turns to mold! I've tried to educate you, but you are a southerner...dumb as a fookin' stone.

Any free system is unstable, and inevitably deteriorates into it's worst condition. Laissez-faire economics inevitably deteriorates into monopoly; libertarianism inevitably deteriorates into totalitarianism. If a precious stone lies free on the path, what, do you think someone won't pick it up and take it for his own? Same thing with Laissez-faire markets and political freedom. People will try to dominate and take over...it's human instinct.

You gotta be stupid not to realize that basic law of human motivation.

If a totalitarian system rises from anarchy, you have the opposite of libertarianism.

Libertarianism is anarachy. The two grew out of the same original sentiment...the removal of the state, in favor of economic liberty. I've tried to show you that it is the same theme in Marxism as in modern corporate capitalism.

Maddog wrote:Oh, and thanks for trying to educate me.

Yes, I do see promise in you. However, you've got to rise about the redneck intellectual arena.

by Maddog Wed Jan 10, 2018 4:40 am

Original Quill wrote:
Maddog wrote:

If a totalitarian system rises from anarchy, you have the opposite of libertarianism.

Libertarianism is anarachy. The two grew out of the same original sentiment...the removal of the state, in favor of economic liberty. I've tried to show you that it is the same theme in Marxism as in modern corporate capitalism.

Maddog wrote:Oh, and thanks for trying to educate me.

Yes, I do see promise in you. However, you've got to rise about the redneck intellectual arena.

So the Libertarian candidate for POTUS was proposing anarchy?

by veya_victaous Wed Jan 10, 2018 4:44 am

Maddog wrote:
Original Quill wrote:
Maddog wrote:

Well duh. Corruption and government control go hand in hand.

BTW, totalitarianism and libertarianism are polar fucking opposites.

You're a complete idiot.

You have been so involved in your Texas bar, that your thinking is polluted with alcohol and southernism.

You are a dumb fuck redneck, so how could you be aware of the deeper theories. Libertarianism is the same as totalitarianism...if you remove all constraints, anything can take over, including a totalitarian system. Haven't you ever left something in the back of the refrigerator? It turns to mold! I've tried to educate you, but you are a southerner...dumb as a fookin' stone.

Any free system is unstable, and inevitably deteriorates into it's worst condition. Laissez-faire economics inevitably deteriorates into monopoly; libertarianism inevitably deteriorates into totalitarianism. If a precious stone lies free on the path, what, do you think someone won't pick it up and take it for his own? Same thing with Laissez-faire markets and political freedom. People will try to dominate and take over...it's human instinct.

You gotta be stupid not to realize that basic law of human motivation.

If a totalitarian system rises from anarchy, you have the opposite of libertarianism.

Oh, and thanks for trying to educate me.

Libertarianism is always going to end it Monopolization, which inevitably without the counter influence of a strong government moves to Totalitarianism.

This is why Libertarianism as a political position is terrible.
And much like my 'Skynet technocracy' preference, the Billionaires that promote 'Libertarianism' only need to convince the foolish and disenfranchised to vote it in Once to change the game and end the current 'Binary Representative Democracy' .

by Maddog Wed Jan 10, 2018 5:19 am

veya_victaous wrote:
Maddog wrote:

If a totalitarian system rises from anarchy, you have the opposite of libertarianism.

Oh, and thanks for trying to educate me.

Libertarianism is always going to end it Monopolization, which inevitably without the counter influence of a strong government moves to Totalitarianism.

This is why Libertarianism as a political position is terrible.
And much like my 'Skynet technocracy' preference, the Billionaires that promote 'Libertarianism' only need to convince the foolish and disenfranchised to vote it in Once to change the game and end the current 'Binary Representative Democracy' .

One can have a libertarian government and have enough government to protect individual rights. In fact that is the role of government in a libertarian society. Therefore, a libertarian government would not allow for totalitarianism because that would trample individual rights.

Are you familiar with the platform of the libertarian party in the US? Did you listen to anything Gary Johnson said during the last election, because it sure doesn't sound like it.

by Maddog Wed Jan 10, 2018 5:23 am

https://www.lp.org/platform/

Here you go Veya. It's better than guessing. I would mention Quill, but he won't read it. Wink

by Sponsored content