Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez facing backlash for 'concentration camps' comments

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCNI0uXq1q8

Concentration camp, internment centre for political prisoners and members of national or minority groups who are confined for reasons of state security, exploitation, or punishment, usually by executive decree or military order. Persons are placed in such camps often on the basis of identification with a particular ethnic or political group rather than as individuals and without benefit either of indictment or fair trial. Concentration camps are to be distinguished from prisons interning persons lawfully convicted of civil crimes and from prisoner-of-war camps in which captured military personnel are held under the laws of war. They are also to be distinguished from refugee camps or detention and relocation centres for the temporary accommodation of large numbers of displaced persons.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/concentration-camp

Hence yet again this idiot opens her mouth and basically insults the victims of real concetration camps, in the holocaust, South Africa, Namibia etc. She is making the detention centres comparable to concentration camps and only in order to promote herself and not the actuall people in the detention centres. Its all about ego. The far left have sunk to a new low with this and whilst there is certainly prroblems to resolve with the detention centres. They are no way camps that have a systemtic policy to work and starve to death people and shoot them out of hand, gas them etc. This is why the left is continually losing their way and why we are seeing more a shift to the right in Europe and even Canada has the conservatives leading the Polls. People are sick to death of this far left SJW idiots who demean the horror people actually faced in concentration camps. What is wrose, is that cretins like this are going to ensure Trump gets  elected again and I think he is as big as a dick as she is.

The Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C. – when reached by the Examiner – sent an essay warning "Why Holocaust Analogies Are Dangerous."

"It is all too easy to forget that there are many people still alive for whom the Holocaust is not 'history,' but their life story and that of their families," Holocaust historian Edna Friedberg wrote. "These are not abstract tragedies on call to win an argument or an election. They carry the painful memories of the brutal murder of a cherished baby boy, the rape of a beloved sister, the parents arrested and never seen again. . . .

"Careless Holocaust analogies may demonize, demean, and intimidate their targets. But there is a cost for all of us because they distract from the real issues challenging our society, because they shut down productive, thoughtful discourse.

"At a time when our country needs dialogue more than ever, it is especially dangerous to exploit the memory of the Holocaust as a rhetorical cudgel. We owe the survivors more than that. And we owe ourselves more than that."

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/concentration-camps-detention-center-aoc-ice/2019/06/18/id/920885/

Esquire wrote:An Expert on Concentration Camps Says That's Exactly What the U.S. Is Running at the Border

"Things can be concentration camps without being Dachau or Auschwitz."

Surely, the United States of America could not operate concentration camps. In the American consciousness, the term is synonymous with the Nazi death machines across the European continent that the Allies began the process of dismantling 75 years ago this month. But while the world-historical horrors of the Holocaust are unmatched, they are only the most extreme and inhuman manifestation of a concentration-camp system—which, according to Andrea Pitzer, author of One Long Night: A Global History of Concentration Camps, has a more global definition. There have been concentration camps in France, South Africa, Cuba, the Soviet Union, and—with Japanese internment—the United States. In fact, she contends we are operating such a system right now in response to a very real spike in arrivals at our southern border.

“We have what I would call a concentration camp system,” Pitzer says, “and the definition of that in my book is, mass detention of civilians without trial.”

Historians use a broader definition of concentration camps, as well.

"What's required is a little bit of demystification of it," says Waitman Wade Beorn, a Holocaust and genocide studies historian and a lecturer at the University of Virginia. "Things can be concentration camps without being Dachau or Auschwitz. Concentration camps in general have always been designed—at the most basic level—to separate one group of people from another group. Usually, because the majority group, or the creators of the camp, deem the people they're putting in it to be dangerous or undesirable in some way."

Not every concentration camp is a death camp—in fact, their primary purpose is rarely extermination, and never in the beginning. Often, much of the death and suffering is a result of insufficient resources, overcrowding, and deteriorating conditions. So far, 24 people have died in the custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement under the Trump administration, while six children have died in the care of other agencies since September. Systems like these have emerged across the world for well over 100 years, and they've been established by putative liberal democracies—as with Britain's camps in South Africa during the Boer War—as well as authoritarian states like Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. Camps set up with one aim can be repurposed by new regimes, often with devastating consequences.

History is banging down the door this week with the news the Trump administration will use Fort Sill, an Oklahoma military base that was used to detain Japanese-Americans during World War II, to house 1,400 unaccompanied migrant children captured at the border. Japanese internment certainly constituted a concentration-camp system, and the echoes of the past are growing louder. Of course, the Obama administration temporarily housed migrants at military bases, including Fort Sill, for four months in 2014, built many of the newer facilities to house migrants, and pioneered some of the tactics the Trump administration is now using to try to manage the situation at the border.

The government of the United States would never call the sprawling network of facilities now in use across many states "concentration camps," of course. They’re referred to as "federal migrant shelters" or "temporary shelters for unaccompanied minors" or "detainment facilities" or the like. (The initial processing facilities are run by Border Patrol, and the system is primarily administered to by the Department of Homeland Security. Many adults are transferred to ICE, which now detains more than 52,000 people across 200 facilities on any given day—a record high. Unaccompanied minors are transferred to Department of Health and Human Services custody.) But by Pitzer's measure, the system at the southern border first set up by the Bill Clinton administration, built on by Barack Obama's government, and brought into extreme and perilous new territory by Donald Trump and his allies does qualify. Two historians who specialize in the area largely agree.

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a27813648/concentration-camps-southern-border-migrant-detention-facilities-trump/

Obviously, some serious scholars agree with AOC. Take a look at: Andrea Pitzer, One Long Night: A Global History of Concentration Camps (2019).

I've pointed out for years that Guantanamo Bay is a genuine concentration camp. These people have merely brought the truth to light.

That person is not even a scholar, but a journalist and author you dummy. Clearly not even an expert on concentration campos, Just another useless idiot peddling bullshit.

What is even worse is again the root cause of this problem is not the detention centres themselves, but the world doing nothing to improve the well being of people and to ensure they have equal rights in the countries where these people are fleeing. That is the real issue here, but as usual Quill defends an idiot jouranlist from the Far left

phildidge wrote:That person is not even a scholar, but a journalist and author you dummy. Clearly not even an expert on concentration campos, Just another useless idiot peddling bullshit.

She's perhaps the most qualified student of the subject in the world.  I'd listen to her, if I were you.

phil wrote:What is even worse is again the root cause of this problem is not the detention centres themselbes, but the world doing nothing to improve the well being of people and to ensure they haveequal rights in the countries where these people are fleeing. That is the real issue here, but as usual Quill defends an idiot jouranlist from the Far left

Well, that's partly true.  But here in the US we have the strange situation in which Republicans subtly invite immigrants, so they can make political symbols of them.  They want the immigrants to come, so that they can be seen as tough on the issue.  Every time Trump gets some bad news in the press, he come up with:

CBS News wrote:Trump says millions in U.S. illegally to be deported starting next week

Idiot God says millions of people living in the country illegally will be deported, beginning next week. In a pair of tweets Monday night — the eve of formally announcing his re-election bid — Mr. Trump said U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement would next week "begin the process of removing the millions of illegal aliens who have illicitly found their way into the United States."

"They will be removed as fast as they come in," he wrote.

So, it's not always the problems at home.  RW politicians know how to stir the shitpot.

What is even more absurd here is nobody claimed that Clinton created concentration camps, when he created these detention centers. Or how Obama deported more illigal immigrants than any US President. It shows these very same people amking this absurd comparrison, failed to make any such claims under Democratic Presidents. Its simple the samer tactic that the left use all the time. They super charge something with outrages claims, to make something perceive to be as evil as Nazism. In order to deligitimise people. This is not open discussion on the actual problems of the detention centres nor how to resolve them. Nor does thios look at the problem of the rise in numbers of illigal immigrants, migrants and refugees.That probem's root cause is within the countries these people are fleeing from. Its pathetic political point scoring on the imaginary Far left moral compass

Original Quill wrote:

phildidge wrote:That person is not even a scholar, but a journalist and author you dummy. Clearly not even an expert on concentration campos, Just another useless idiot peddling bullshit.

She's perhaps the most qualified student of the subject in the world.  I'd listen to her, if I were you.

So you have just disqualified every single historian and scholars that are experts on concentration camps. Who have earned their spurs through being qualified and you compare this to someone who cannot even understand the basic defintiion in Britannica of Concentration camps?

I am sure she has researched well historical events, But then opinions on comparrisons, which have no comparrisons. Are not reasoned arguments but super charged political views. Its become pointless debating someone so biased as you are and political swayed by your new religious ideology of the Far left., I am suprised they have not made you a high priest yet

phildidge wrote:What is even more absurd here is nobody claimed that Clinton created concentration camps, when he created these detention centers. Or how Obama deported more illigal immigrants than any US President. It shows these very same people amking this absurd comparrison, failed to make any such claims under Democratic Presidents. Its simple the samer tactic that the left use all the time. They super charge something with outrages claims, to make something perceive to be as evil as Nazism. In order to deligitimise people. This is not open discussion on the actual problems of the detention centres nor how to resolve them. Nor does thios look at the problem of the rise in numbers of illigal immigrants, migrants and refugees.That probem's root cause is within the countries these people are fleeing from. Its pathetic political point scoring on the imaginary Far left moral compass

Guantanamo started under the Bush Administration. Obama couldn't get rid of it because of a Republican Congress. Trump is going about setting many more of concentration camps, including the old Japanese Internment Center from WWII.

How appropriate.

This is a very good summary of what this really is about and how the left are trying to change the meaning of words through semantics. They have done this with racism, through intersectionality and are now attemtping to do this with temporary detention centers. Really worrth the watch



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjOYnFT4ALk

Stop posting videos, and learn to read. Start with, Andrea Pitzer, One Long Night: A Global History of Concentration Camps (2019).

God almighty! What has happened to the British educational system that a grown man can't even read.

phildidge wrote:This is a very good summary of what this really is about and how the left are trying to change the meaning of words through semantics. They have done this with racism, through intersectionality and are now attemtping to do this with temporary detention centers. Really worrth the watch



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjOYnFT4ALk

Posted for the rest of the fourm

He wants me to read one book, when I have read many like the "Kaisers Holocaust", "Bloodlands" etc and he thinks only her opinions are the only ones that are important and not the opinions from the Journalist Tiim. What a double standard. I would be quite happy to read her her book for the historical aspects but no doubt would sigh, as its get political. She is entittled to her views, but her opinions come from a political view point more than historical.

Nothing new to see here.

Once again Dodge is falsely labelling these "left wing" politicians and journo's as "far left wing extremists" peddling "far left ideaologies"...

Only in Amirica, do we see those pesky thorns in the right-whingers' sides being labelled as "far left" and "extremist"..

Out here in the real world, those fancifully labelled "far left extremists" are more likely to be classified as moderates and 'centrists'.   Whenever I see Barack Obama and Bill Clinton labelled as "left wingers" I have to laugh at some peoples' ignorance, when they were both centre-right politicians.  

Dodge only goes to show his own position on the political spectrum, whenever he joins in falsely labelling right-wingers as left, and moderately left-leaning as extreme left-wing Marxists..

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Once again Dodge is falsely labelling these "left wing" politicians and journo's as "far left wing extremists" peddling "far left ideaologies"...

Only in Amirica, do we see those pesky thorns in the right-whingers' sides being labelled as "far left" and "extremist"..

Out here in the real world, those fancifully labelled "far left extremists" are more likely to be classified as moderates and 'centrists'.   Whenever I see Barack Obama and Bill Clinton labelled as "left wingers" I have to laugh at some peoples' ignorance, when they were both centre-right politicians.  

Dodge only goes to show his own position on the political spectrum, whenever he joins in falsely labelling right-wingers as left, and moderately left-leaning as extreme left-wing Marxists..

Anyone who uses semantics to change the meaning of something like concention camps, for political scoring is coming from the Far left. Not the liberal left, but the far left. They are adherants to intersectionality. Which has sought to change the meaning of racism. This is just one of the tennats of the Far left religioius ideology and as usual you are blind to this.

I am not claiming the majority of the left are like this, but a growing number of the left have joined this extreme religion. Unlike you I dont discount the problems on the far right and speak out against them. You however as seen make really dim witted views to defend the Far left. Of which this idiot Cortez belongs to this ideological far left extremist cult. She is as extreme, as hateful and problematic as Trump. In the end she will ensure Trump gets relected

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Once again Dodge is falsely labelling these "left wing" politicians and journo's as "far left wing extremists" peddling "far left ideaologies"...

Only in Amirica, do we see those pesky thorns in the right-whingers' sides being labelled as "far left" and "extremist"..

Out here in the real world, those fancifully labelled "far left extremists" are more likely to be classified as moderates and 'centrists'.   Whenever I see Barack Obama and Bill Clinton labelled as "left wingers" I have to laugh at some peoples' ignorance, when they were both centre-right politicians.  

Dodge only goes to show his own position on the political spectrum, whenever he joins in falsely labelling right-wingers as left, and moderately left-leaning as extreme left-wing Marxists..

AOC is a socialist. She admits as such.

Clinton and Obama are not.

Maddog wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Once again Dodge is falsely labelling these "left wing" politicians and journo's as "far left wing extremists" peddling "far left ideaologies"...

Only in Amirica, do we see those pesky thorns in the right-whingers' sides being labelled as "far left" and "extremist"..

Out here in the real world, those fancifully labelled "far left extremists" are more likely to be classified as moderates and 'centrists'.   Whenever I see Barack Obama and Bill Clinton labelled as "left wingers" I have to laugh at some peoples' ignorance, when they were both centre-right politicians.  

Dodge only goes to show his own position on the political spectrum, whenever he joins in falsely labelling right-wingers as left, and moderately left-leaning as extreme left-wing Marxists..

AOC is a socialist.  She admits as such.

Clinton and Obama are not.  

Socialism is not a bad idea, particularly since the relative failure of capitalism.  In the US, Social Security runs smoothly, Medicare and Medicaid are fine, and the United States Military is superior to all others, globally.  All are funded by the people, run by the people, for the people, and of the people.  These are socialist organizations.

It's hard to say, categorically, that Clinton and Obama were not in some degree socialists.  Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and the United States Military all functioned just fine with the support of Clinton of Obama.

Socialism is not a form of government, but a way of creating and funding programs within government.  It's a form of economic organization; democracy is it's equivalent politically, as it too is by the people, for the people and of the people.  In many ways socialism has proven superior to private enterprise, which gets carried away with its alternative goal to human well-being...profit.

Maddog wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Once again Dodge is falsely labelling these "left wing" politicians and journo's as "far left wing extremists" peddling "far left ideaologies"...

Only in Amirica, do we see those pesky thorns in the right-whingers' sides being labelled as "far left" and "extremist"..

Out here in the real world, those fancifully labelled "far left extremists" are more likely to be classified as moderates and 'centrists'.   Whenever I see Barack Obama and Bill Clinton labelled as "left wingers" I have to laugh at some peoples' ignorance, when they were both centre-right politicians.  

Dodge only goes to show his own position on the political spectrum, whenever he joins in falsely labelling right-wingers as left, and moderately left-leaning as extreme left-wing Marxists..

AOC is a socialist.  She admits as such.

Clinton and Obama are not.  

A Democratic Socialist, or Social Democrat (the way AOC and Sanders use the terms they are interchangeable). Not a socialist the way Castro, Mao or Chavez were socialists.

So no bogeymen here first of all.

Further, showing photos of similar awful treatment during Obama's presidency doesn't justify the same or worse in Trump's. It just means is this regard both were bad.

And the Right attacking AOC is what isn't new. And her using the term concentration camps is far more justified and reasonable than RW hystetics over losing free speech because of a few college campuses and insinuating Sanders or Warren would make the US like Venezuela

Eilzel wrote:

Maddog wrote:

AOC is a socialist.  She admits as such.

Clinton and Obama are not.  

A Democratic Socialist, or Social Democrat (the way AOC and Sanders use the terms they are interchangeable). Not a socialist the way Castro, Mao or Chavez were socialists.

So no bogeymen here first of all.

Further, showing photos of similar awful treatment during Obama's presidency doesn't justify the same or worse in Trump's. It just means is this regard both were bad.

And the Right attacking AOC is what isn't new. And her using the term concentration camps is far more justified and reasonable than RW hystetics over losing free speech because of a few college campuses and insinuating Sanders or Warren would make the US like Venezuela

Only another socialist would agree that the detention centers are comparable to concentration camps

Of all people I would have thought you would have seen passed the semnatics at play but alass, you simple follow the crowd when politicalk point scoring is at hand. You really are out of touch with what is happenning in Colleges and Universities and Evergreen and Oberlin Colege are just the tip of the iceberg. What is happenning is the social sciences have been taken over mainly by the Far left. With their ideological views. Where as seen the problems that have occured at the above two places. Are a direct result of this ideology being taught and you sadly want to down play this, because you simple dont want to open your eyes up to the truth of what is going on.

As seen the problem is the mass number of people trying illegally enter the country. So the best thing to do is to invest more money into this problem. Or do you suggest they simple open the borders and create vast problems for the infrustructure of the country, which is what Cortez wants? The borders need more money to cope with the influx of illegal immigrants. Who its odd, that they are travelling thousands of miles from places like Africa, flying to South America and travelling all the way up into the US. To then run the risk of being placed in these so called concentration camps. Never seen that happen before in history, have you?

You see this is why many people are getting sick to death of the bullshit the left peddal. We hgave seen this nonesense time and again with Israel, where they are compared to Aparthied and the Nazism, to then try and change the meaning of a word, like racism and concentration camps. To deligitimise people based off such poor lies. The reality is and what is lost on the likes of you, is these people who have entered illegally, have broken the law. That means the Governement has a right to detain them. Which what needs to happen is the process is speeded up in deporting them. As again yes there is problems in the dentention centres, all created because the Democrats wont release any money to help solve the problem and thus aiding in the growing problems of these facilities becoming over crowded. Like i say the real root cause is the countries where these people are fleeing froom and if refugees, they would hand themselves in at the border and claim asylum and not try and sneak in. Is the very laws and poverty they live in. If you want to tackle the problem, you look to help bring these countries out of poverty and ensure they have human rights

Concentration camp my arse, is simple super charged bullshit, to invoke a reaction

phil wrote:Only another socialist would agree that the detention centers are comparable to concentration camps

Do you have any proof of that? I don't even know if Pitzer is a socialist...whatever that means.

phildidge wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

A Democratic Socialist, or Social Democrat (the way AOC and Sanders use the terms they are interchangeable). Not a socialist the way Castro, Mao or Chavez were socialists.

So no bogeymen here first of all.

Further, showing photos of similar awful treatment during Obama's presidency doesn't justify the same or worse in Trump's. It just means is this regard both were bad.

And the Right attacking AOC is what isn't new. And her using the term concentration camps is far more justified and reasonable than RW hystetics over losing free speech because of a few college campuses and insinuating Sanders or Warren would make the US like Venezuela

Only another socialist would agree that the detention centers are comparable to concentration camps

Of all people I would have thought you would have seen passed the semnatics at play but alass, you simple follow the crowd when politicalk point scoring is at hand. You really are out of touch with what is happenning in Colleges and Universities and Evergreen and Oberlin Colege are just the tip of the iceberg. What is happenning is the social sciences have been taken over mainly by the Far left. With their ideological views. Where as seen the problems that have occured at the above two places. Are a direct result of this ideology being taught and you sadly want to down play this, because you simple dont want to open your eyes up to the truth of what is going on.

As seen the problem is the mass number of people trying illegally enter the country. So the best thing to do is to invest more money into this problem. Or do you suggest they simple open the borders and create vast problems for the infrustructure of the country, which is what Cortez wants? The borders need more money to cope with the influx of illegal immigrants. Who its odd, that they are travelling thousands of miles from places like Africa, flying to South America and travelling all the way up into the US. To then run the risk of being placed in these so called concentration camps. Never seen that happen before in history, have you?

You see this is why many people are getting sick to death of the bullshit the left peddal. We hgave seen this nonesense time and again with Israel, where they are compared to Aparthied and the Nazism, to then try and change the meaning of a word, like racism and concentration camps. To deligitimise people based off such poor lies. The reality is and what is lost on the likes of you, is these people who have entered illegally, have broken the law. That means the Governement has a right to detain them. Which what needs to happen is the process is speeded up in deporting them. As again yes there is problems in the dentention centres, all created because the Democrats wont release any money to help solve the problem and thus aiding in the growing problems of these facilities becoming over crowded. Like i say the real root cause is the countries where these people are fleeing froom and if refugees, they would hand themselves in at the border and claim asylum and not try and sneak in. Is the very laws and poverty they live in. If you want to tackle the problem, you look to help bring these countries out of poverty and ensure they have human rights

Concentration camp my arse, is simple super charged bullshit, to invoke a reaction

Bumped for Eizel, as i refuse to engage with that idiot high priest of the intersectionality cult

Eilzel wrote:

Maddog wrote:

AOC is a socialist.  She admits as such.

Clinton and Obama are not.  

A Democratic Socialist, or Social Democrat (the way AOC and Sanders use the terms they are interchangeable). Not a socialist the way Castro, Mao or Chavez were socialists.

So no bogeymen here first of all.

Further, showing photos of similar awful treatment during Obama's presidency doesn't justify the same or worse in Trump's. It just means is this regard both were bad.

And the Right attacking AOC is what isn't new. And her using the term concentration camps is far more justified and reasonable than RW hystetics over losing free speech because of a few college campuses and insinuating Sanders or Warren would make the US like Venezuela

Democratic Socialism still calls for social or government control over the means of production.

My point is, that Clinton and Obama are capitalists, not socialists. They have a different philosophy than AOC. That's why mainstream Dems have a problem with her.

First, we call ourselves socialists because we are proud of what we are. Second, no matter what we call ourselves, conservatives will use it against us. Anti-socialism has been repeatedly used to attack reforms that shift power to working class people and away from corporate capital. In 1993, national health insurance was attacked as “socialized medicine” and defeated. Liberals are routinely denounced as socialists in order to discredit reform. Until we face, and beat, the stigma attached to the “S word,” politics in America will continue to be stifled and our options limited. We also call ourselves socialists because we are proud of the traditions upon which we are based, of the heritage of the Socialist Party of Eugene Debs and Norman Thomas, and of other struggles for change that have made America more democratic and just. Finally, we call ourselves socialists to remind everyone that we have a vision of a better world.

https://www.dsausa.org/about-us/what-is-democratic-socialism/


To clear up any confusion. Democratic Socialists are Socialists. They may or may not be Democrats.

Any questions?

phildidge wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Maddog wrote:

AOC is a socialist.  She admits as such.

Clinton and Obama are not.  

A Democratic Socialist, or Social Democrat (the way AOC and Sanders use the terms they are interchangeable). Not a socialist the way Castro, Mao or Chavez were socialists.

So no bogeymen here first of all.

Further, showing photos of similar awful treatment during Obama's presidency doesn't justify the same or worse in Trump's. It just means is this regard both were bad.

And the Right attacking AOC is what isn't new. And her using the term concentration camps is far more justified and reasonable than RW hystetics over losing free speech because of a few college campuses and insinuating Sanders or Warren would make the US like Venezuela

Only another socialist would agree that the detention centers are comparable to concentration camps

Of all people I would have thought you would have seen passed the semnatics at play but alass, you simple follow the crowd when politicalk point scoring is at hand. You really are out of touch with what is happenning in Colleges and Universities and Evergreen and Oberlin Colege are just the tip of the iceberg. What is happenning is the social sciences have been taken over mainly by the Far left. With their ideological views. Where as seen the problems that have occured at the above two places. Are a direct result of this ideology being taught and you sadly want to down play this, because you simple dont want to open your eyes up to the truth of what is going on.

As seen the problem is the mass number of people trying illegally enter the country. So the best thing to do is to invest more money into this problem. Or do you suggest they simple open the borders and create vast problems for the infrustructure of the country, which is what Cortez wants? The borders need more money to cope with the influx of illegal immigrants. Who its odd, that they are travelling thousands of miles from places like Africa, flying to South America and travelling all the way up into the US. To then run the risk of being placed in these so called concentration camps. Never seen that happen before in history, have you?

You see this is why many people are getting sick to death of the bullshit the left peddal. We hgave seen this nonesense time and again with Israel, where they are compared to Aparthied and the Nazism, to then try and change the meaning of a word, like racism and concentration camps. To deligitimise people based off such poor lies. The reality is and what is lost on the likes of you, is these people who have entered illegally, have broken the law. That means the Governement has a right to detain them. Which what needs to happen is the process is speeded up in deporting them. As again yes there is problems in the dentention centres, all created because the Democrats wont release any money to help solve the problem and thus aiding in the growing problems of these facilities becoming over crowded. Like i say the real root cause is the countries where these people are fleeing froom and if refugees, they would hand themselves in at the border and claim asylum and not try and sneak in. Is the very laws and poverty they live in. If you want to tackle the problem, you look to help bring these countries out of poverty and ensure they have human rights

Concentration camp my arse, is simple super charged bullshit, to invoke a reaction

When the Right stops comparing the Left to Stalin, Venezuela, the USSR etc., I'll get more 'offended' by AOC comparing detainment centres to concentration camps.

It is ridiculous people are MORE upset about a not completely unfair comparison than they do ACTUAL people DYING in those centres.

Maddog wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Maddog wrote:

AOC is a socialist.  She admits as such.

Clinton and Obama are not.  

A Democratic Socialist, or Social Democrat (the way AOC and Sanders use the terms they are interchangeable). Not a socialist the way Castro, Mao or Chavez were socialists.

So no bogeymen here first of all.

Further, showing photos of similar awful treatment during Obama's presidency doesn't justify the same or worse in Trump's. It just means is this regard both were bad.

And the Right attacking AOC is what isn't new. And her using the term concentration camps is far more justified and reasonable than RW hystetics over losing free speech because of a few college campuses and insinuating Sanders or Warren would make the US like Venezuela

Democratic Socialism still calls for social or government control over the means of production.

My point is, that Clinton and Obama are capitalists, not socialists. They have a different philosophy than AOC. That's why mainstream Dems have a problem with her.  

Does AOC call for government control over the means of production? Does she even call for a fully even distribution of wealth?

If she has I haven't seen any of those things.

AGAIN (since you ignored this point last time) when AOC and Sanders refer to 'Democratic Socialism' what they really mean today is 'Social Democracy' which is NOT entirely the same thing.

Or are you just doing the usual simplistic trick of getting hung up on a 'word' - do you think the Democratic Republic of Korea is truly democratic?
Watch AOC for what she asks for, don't slur her just because of what she says she is (or are you one of these typical 45+ year-olds who sees red whenever you hear the EVIW S word

Eilzel wrote:

phildidge wrote:


Only another socialist would agree that the detention centers are comparable to concentration camps

Of all people I would have thought you would have seen passed the semnatics at play but alass, you simple follow the crowd when politicalk point scoring is at hand. You really are out of touch with what is happenning in Colleges and Universities and Evergreen and Oberlin Colege are just the tip of the iceberg. What is happenning is the social sciences have been taken over mainly by the Far left. With their ideological views. Where as seen the problems that have occured at the above two places. Are a direct result of this ideology being taught and you sadly want to down play this, because you simple dont want to open your eyes up to the truth of what is going on.

As seen the problem is the mass number of people trying illegally enter the country. So the best thing to do is to invest more money into this problem. Or do you suggest they simple open the borders and create vast problems for the infrustructure of the country, which is what Cortez wants? The borders need more money to cope with the influx of illegal immigrants. Who its odd, that they are travelling thousands of miles from places like Africa, flying to South America and travelling all the way up into the US. To then run the risk of being placed in these so called concentration camps. Never seen that happen before in history, have you?

You see this is why many people are getting sick to death of the bullshit the left peddal. We hgave seen this nonesense time and again with Israel, where they are compared to Aparthied and the Nazism, to then try and change the meaning of a word, like racism and concentration camps. To deligitimise people based off such poor lies. The reality is and what is lost on the likes of you, is these people who have entered illegally, have broken the law. That means the Governement has a right to detain them. Which what needs to happen is the process is speeded up in deporting them. As again yes there is problems in the dentention centres, all created because the Democrats wont release any money to help solve the problem and thus aiding in the growing problems of these facilities becoming over crowded. Like i say the real root cause is the countries where these people are fleeing froom and if refugees, they would hand themselves in at the border and claim asylum and not try and sneak in. Is the very laws and poverty they live in. If you want to tackle the problem, you look to help bring these countries out of poverty and ensure they have human rights

Concentration camp my arse, is simple super charged bullshit, to invoke a reaction

When the Right stops comparing the Left to Stalin, Venezuela, the USSR etc., I'll get more 'offended' by AOC comparing detainment centres to concentration camps.

It is ridiculous people are MORE upset about a not completely unfair comparison than they do ACTUAL people DYING in those centres.

Who has been comparing the left on here to Stalin, Venzula, the USSR?
Nobody has, they compare the Far left, of which many hold the same views
So irs you conflating the wrong issues here and off this to decide to defend what can only be described as a marxist idiot in the form of Cortex, of which she certainly holds many of his views

Not unfair comparrison? So basedf on your reasoning and people dying in detention centres, the Uk, has concentration camps then?

Yes sometimes people die, due to the fact as happens with all people. Lives sometimes cannot be saved, due to how these people have travelled and are malnourished and often dehydrated. That is not a system of abuse is it? Or a system to mistreat the people. Its a system that actually feeds them very well, if you bothered to take off your biased socialist glasses off for two seconds. The problem at the moment is driven by the numbers and the fact the democrats refuse to release more money to help this problem. The very people super charging this same bullshit you are. Happen to be the same people fueling this problem. So yes sometimes people die in detention centers, but there is no poilicy to mistreat the people being detained. I am, sure there is some abuse at times in the modern era in detention centres, but to claim comaprrsion to concentration camps, shows you are being a complete idiot, period

So again what do you suggest to do about this problem? Simple open the borders, or provide more funding to help speed up the process of these temp detention centres?

Maddog wrote:First, we call ourselves socialists because we are proud of what we are. Second, no matter what we call ourselves, conservatives will use it against us. Anti-socialism has been repeatedly used to attack reforms that shift power to working class people and away from corporate capital. In 1993, national health insurance was attacked as “socialized medicine” and defeated. Liberals are routinely denounced as socialists in order to discredit reform. Until we face, and beat, the stigma attached to the “S word,” politics in America will continue to be stifled and our options limited. We also call ourselves socialists because we are proud of the traditions upon which we are based, of the heritage of the Socialist Party of Eugene Debs and Norman Thomas, and of other struggles for change that have made America more democratic and just. Finally, we call ourselves socialists to remind everyone that we have a vision of a better world.

https://www.dsausa.org/about-us/what-is-democratic-socialism/


To clear up any confusion. Democratic Socialists are Socialists. They may or may not be Democrats.

Any questions?

Yes, Sir !  Me, me..  I have a question...

Why don't you move on from posting idiotic and irrelevant quotes from vague and unknown US-based far-right-whinge/"libertarian" disinformation sources  --  and extend your personal "research and study" into some more genuine, reliable and more widely-recognised sources  ?

Where you can find more accurate definitions, instead of the Libertarian-friendly lying garbage you keep on posting up on here..

You have demonstrated multiple times that you neither understand socialist systems, nor are you capable of admitting to the "broad church" model that the very concept of 'socialism' actually involves.

phildidge wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

phildidge wrote:


Only another socialist would agree that the detention centers are comparable to concentration camps

Of all people I would have thought you would have seen passed the semnatics at play but alass, you simple follow the crowd when politicalk point scoring is at hand. You really are out of touch with what is happenning in Colleges and Universities and Evergreen and Oberlin Colege are just the tip of the iceberg. What is happenning is the social sciences have been taken over mainly by the Far left. With their ideological views. Where as seen the problems that have occured at the above two places. Are a direct result of this ideology being taught and you sadly want to down play this, because you simple dont want to open your eyes up to the truth of what is going on.

As seen the problem is the mass number of people trying illegally enter the country. So the best thing to do is to invest more money into this problem. Or do you suggest they simple open the borders and create vast problems for the infrustructure of the country, which is what Cortez wants? The borders need more money to cope with the influx of illegal immigrants. Who its odd, that they are travelling thousands of miles from places like Africa, flying to South America and travelling all the way up into the US. To then run the risk of being placed in these so called concentration camps. Never seen that happen before in history, have you?

You see this is why many people are getting sick to death of the bullshit the left peddal. We hgave seen this nonesense time and again with Israel, where they are compared to Aparthied and the Nazism, to then try and change the meaning of a word, like racism and concentration camps. To deligitimise people based off such poor lies. The reality is and what is lost on the likes of you, is these people who have entered illegally, have broken the law. That means the Governement has a right to detain them. Which what needs to happen is the process is speeded up in deporting them. As again yes there is problems in the dentention centres, all created because the Democrats wont release any money to help solve the problem and thus aiding in the growing problems of these facilities becoming over crowded. Like i say the real root cause is the countries where these people are fleeing froom and if refugees, they would hand themselves in at the border and claim asylum and not try and sneak in. Is the very laws and poverty they live in. If you want to tackle the problem, you look to help bring these countries out of poverty and ensure they have human rights

Concentration camp my arse, is simple super charged bullshit, to invoke a reaction

When the Right stops comparing the Left to Stalin, Venezuela, the USSR etc., I'll get more 'offended' by AOC comparing detainment centres to concentration camps.

It is ridiculous people are MORE upset about a not completely unfair comparison than they do ACTUAL people DYING in those centres.

Who has been comparing the left on here to Stalin, Venzula, the USSR?
Nobody has, they compare the Far left, of which many hold the same views
So irs you conflating the wrong issues here and off this to decide to defend what can only be described as a marxist idiot in the form of Cortex, of which she certainly holds many of his views

Not unfair comparrison? So basedf on your reasoning and people dying in detention centres, the Uk, has concentration camps then?

Yes sometimes people die, due to the fact as happens with all people. Lives sometimes cannot be saved, due to how these people have travelled and are malnourished and often dehydrated. That is not a system of abuse is it? Or a system to mistreat the people. Its a system that actually feeds them very well, if you bothered to take off your biased socialist glasses off for two seconds. The problem at the moment is driven by the numbers and the fact the democrats refuse to release more money to help this problem. The very people super charging this same bullshit you are. Happen to be the same people fueling this problem. So yes sometimes people die in detention centers, but there is no poilicy to mistreat the people being detained. I am, sure there is some abuse at times in the modern era in detention centres, but to claim comaprrsion to concentration camps, shows you are being a complete idiot, period

So again what do you suggest to do about this problem? Simple open the borders, or provide more funding to help speed up the process of these temp detention centres?

Cortex? She isn't fighting bandicoots, mate

OK, so which of Marx's views does Cortez hold? Which Marxist policies is she trying to get through Congress?

And there is a comparison. One of the common arguments from Shaprio, Crowder and Fox news and even some Rep politicians is that if Sanders won or people like AOC became more powerful then the USA could become like Venezuela. In the UK, the term 'EUSSR' has been thrown around a lot on these forums.

The problem of immigration is multifaceted. I'm not a politician, so luckily it isn't my job to find a solution, but these are the things I'd focus on:
- helping solve the problems in the countries most immigrants are fleeing from (so they don't need to leave).
- treating those who DO flee with decency and respect.
- NOT vilifying immigrants as 'illegal aliens' and with the kind of inflammatory language the Right in BOTH our countries do.
- eventually (in the far future) I'd agree with open borders. But admit that in our life time it isn't probably feasible.

Where did I say she is trying to pass policies?
Can you not read?
Sure no problem on views, same views on capitalism.
Same on healthcare
Same on education
Same hate of Jews

Anything else, or do you want me to embarress you further on such a poor  point?

I would say one of the most common prpoblkems here, is your inability to read what has been said to you. I would also say one of your biggest failings ios not learning from the grooming gang scandal as I did. We both did not believe this at first until this came out and you are doing the same. When shown Universities have become over run with the Far left in the humanities department, preaching hateful ideologies. Which has led to the rise of these over entittled kids.

So avoided what I asked, in that what do we do in this instance? I asked what do we do here and you agree to open borders, wow. So you would basically allow criminals, terrorists to enter without any checks. Its never going to eventually happen in the future. As you will have some criminals. So again i ask what you do in this situiation?

So as i already stated the problem is at the source. Which you agree with me on, but then you are against foreign involvement in these countries, so that contradicts your first argument.

We are not talkking about people who flee, but illegal imigrants. People who flee, that are refugees and hand themselves into the border. So you want to muollycoddle people who break the law and treat them dignity who enter illegally? I will remind you of that the next time you make mean words against a homophobic criminal. I guess the double standard is allowed, based on your own arbritary view point on who you deem as a criminal then, eh? So you want to treat those who break the law by entering the country equally as those who entered the country legally and to you there is no difference?
Yet you are happy to villify the border guards and the US government as instigating and running concentration camps? The double standards by you here is embarressing. So I agree the language is wrong and why I have never used the term illegal aliens. They are certainly criminals mind, as they have broken the law.

I would add, the only thing I think should change is in regards to parents with children or children without parents. To be placed in sanctuary cities to be processed through the system. All others held in the detention centers. Then processed through the criminal justice system. What is certainly needed is more money and facilities to deal with mass number of people to process.

phildidge wrote:Where did I say she is trying to pass policies?
Can you not read?
Sure no problem on views, same views on capitalism.
Same on healthcare
Same on education
Same hate of Jews

Anything else, or do you want me to embarress you further on such a poor  point?

I would say one of the most common prpoblkems here, is your inability to read what has been said to you. I would also say one of your biggest failings ios not learning from the grooming gang scandal as I did. We both did not believe this at first until this came out and you are doing the same. When shown Universities have become over run with the Far left in the humanities department, preaching hateful ideologies. Which has led to the rise of these over entittled kids.

So avoided what I asked, in that what do we do in this instance? I asked what do we do here and you agree to open borders, wow. So you would basically allow criminals, terrorists to enter without any checks. Its never going to eventually happen in the future. As you will have some criminals. So again i ask what you do in this situiation?

So as i already stated the problem is at the source. Which you agree with me on, but then you are against foreign involvement in these countries, so that contradicts your first argument.

We are not talkking about people who flee, but illegal imigrants. People who flee, that are refugees and hand themselves into the border. So you want to muollycoddle people who break the law and treat them dignity who enter illegally? I will remind you of that the next time you make mean words against a homophobic criminal. I guess the double standard is allowed, based on your own arbritary view point on who you deem as a criminal then, eh? So you want to treat those who break the law by entering the country equally as those who entered the country legally and to you there is no difference?
Yet you are happy to villify the border guards and the US government as instigating and running concentration camps? The double standards by you here is embarressing. So I agree the language is wrong and why I have never used the term illegal aliens. They are certainly criminals mind, as they have broken the law.

What specific views does she have on health, education and Jews that are the same as Marx's? Because if it's just that everyone is entitled to free healthcare and education then I'm afraid that is not a bad thing. You can't just throw the Marxist slur as if a few shared beliefs means anything substantial, and is in fact the exact RW conflation I referred to earlier.

Eilzel wrote:

phildidge wrote:Where did I say she is trying to pass policies?
Can you not read?
Sure no problem on views, same views on capitalism.
Same on healthcare
Same on education
Same hate of Jews

Anything else, or do you want me to embarress you further on such a poor  point?

I would say one of the most common prpoblkems here, is your inability to read what has been said to you. I would also say one of your biggest failings ios not learning from the grooming gang scandal as I did. We both did not believe this at first until this came out and you are doing the same. When shown Universities have become over run with the Far left in the humanities department, preaching hateful ideologies. Which has led to the rise of these over entittled kids.

So avoided what I asked, in that what do we do in this instance? I asked what do we do here and you agree to open borders, wow. So you would basically allow criminals, terrorists to enter without any checks. Its never going to eventually happen in the future. As you will have some criminals. So again i ask what you do in this situiation?

So as i already stated the problem is at the source. Which you agree with me on, but then you are against foreign involvement in these countries, so that contradicts your first argument.

We are not talkking about people who flee, but illegal imigrants. People who flee, that are refugees and hand themselves into the border. So you want to muollycoddle people who break the law and treat them dignity who enter illegally? I will remind you of that the next time you make mean words against a homophobic criminal. I guess the double standard is allowed, based on your own arbritary view point on who you deem as a criminal then, eh? So you want to treat those who break the law by entering the country equally as those who entered the country legally and to you there is no difference?
Yet you are happy to villify the border guards and the US government as instigating and running concentration camps? The double standards by you here is embarressing. So I agree the language is wrong and why I have never used the term illegal aliens. They are certainly criminals mind, as they have broken the law.

What specific views does she have on health, education and Jews that are the same as Marx's? Because if it's just that everyone is entitled to free healthcare and education then I'm afraid that is not a bad thing. You can't just throw the Marxist slur as if a few shared beliefs means anything substantial, and is in fact the exact RW conflation I referred to earlier.

I certainly can when people throw around concentration camp claims.

annnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnd the penny drops finally

phildidge wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

phildidge wrote:Where did I say she is trying to pass policies?
Can you not read?
Sure no problem on views, same views on capitalism.
Same on healthcare
Same on education
Same hate of Jews

Anything else, or do you want me to embarress you further on such a poor  point?

I would say one of the most common prpoblkems here, is your inability to read what has been said to you. I would also say one of your biggest failings ios not learning from the grooming gang scandal as I did. We both did not believe this at first until this came out and you are doing the same. When shown Universities have become over run with the Far left in the humanities department, preaching hateful ideologies. Which has led to the rise of these over entittled kids.

So avoided what I asked, in that what do we do in this instance? I asked what do we do here and you agree to open borders, wow. So you would basically allow criminals, terrorists to enter without any checks. Its never going to eventually happen in the future. As you will have some criminals. So again i ask what you do in this situiation?

So as i already stated the problem is at the source. Which you agree with me on, but then you are against foreign involvement in these countries, so that contradicts your first argument.

We are not talkking about people who flee, but illegal imigrants. People who flee, that are refugees and hand themselves into the border. So you want to muollycoddle people who break the law and treat them dignity who enter illegally? I will remind you of that the next time you make mean words against a homophobic criminal. I guess the double standard is allowed, based on your own arbritary view point on who you deem as a criminal then, eh? So you want to treat those who break the law by entering the country equally as those who entered the country legally and to you there is no difference?
Yet you are happy to villify the border guards and the US government as instigating and running concentration camps? The double standards by you here is embarressing. So I agree the language is wrong and why I have never used the term illegal aliens. They are certainly criminals mind, as they have broken the law.

What specific views does she have on health, education and Jews that are the same as Marx's? Because if it's just that everyone is entitled to free healthcare and education then I'm afraid that is not a bad thing. You can't just throw the Marxist slur as if a few shared beliefs means anything substantial, and is in fact the exact RW conflation I referred to earlier.

I certainly can when people throw around concentration camp claims.

annnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnd the penny drops finally

The problem is that you and others have been throwing around Venezuela, Marx, EUSSR etc for much longer. The hypocrisy of RW complainers over this is hilarious.

Eilzel wrote:

phildidge wrote:

I certainly can when people throw around concentration camp claims.

annnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnd the penny drops finally

The problem is that you and others have been throwing around Venezuela, Marx, EUSSR etc for much longer. The hypocrisy of RW complainers over this is hilarious.

Oh dear someone does not like getting caught out badly

The reality is Corbyn and his cronies have defended Maduro's socialism
Cortez has refused to denounce Maduro and his socialism
So there is no hypocrisy there, when children are daily starving and dying. With infant mortality one of the highest in the world. With millions that have fled the country. With thousands being murdered and persecuted and what does Cortez say against this barabism?

Nothing

That is what you call rank hypocrisy

Maddog wrote:First, we call ourselves socialists because we are proud of what we are. Second, no matter what we call ourselves, conservatives will use it against us. Anti-socialism has been repeatedly used to attack reforms that shift power to working class people and away from corporate capital. In 1993, national health insurance was attacked as “socialized medicine” and defeated. Liberals are routinely denounced as socialists in order to discredit reform. Until we face, and beat, the stigma attached to the “S word,” politics in America will continue to be stifled and our options limited. We also call ourselves socialists because we are proud of the traditions upon which we are based, of the heritage of the Socialist Party of Eugene Debs and Norman Thomas, and of other struggles for change that have made America more democratic and just. Finally, we call ourselves socialists to remind everyone that we have a vision of a better world.

https://www.dsausa.org/about-us/what-is-democratic-socialism/


To clear up any confusion. Democratic Socialists are Socialists. They may or may not be Democrats.

Any questions?

Socialism is merely a means to combat wasteful and unnecessary profit-taking.    By pooling resources in a non-profit way (note: it need not be government; it might be guilds, councils or any collective that relieves the burden of high costs in tooling) socialism eliminates profit, that greedy fourth mouth at the dinner table.

The Industrial Revolution took producers away from their individual workbenches and tools, and created the factory.  With factories, tools became bigger and much more expensive.  Along came a few rich guys and held the whole process in a headlock until the rest agreed that they could also call the shots.

Capitalism started out as just the fourth element of co-equal production: land, labor, invention and capital.  But capitalists were greedy and wanted control as well as participation.  They withheld capital unless they were given "ownership".  It's very much like how labor withholds its labor when they go on strike--only with capital, withholding is seen as permissible and routine.

For the most part, capitalism demands unlimited 'profit' in return for it's participation.  Socialism merely provides the capital without demanding any return.  Socialists say: return profit to the craftsmen, where it belongs.  Socialism exiles the greedy beast of the capitalists, and demands only cooperation among the craftsmen.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Maddog wrote:First, we call ourselves socialists because we are proud of what we are. Second, no matter what we call ourselves, conservatives will use it against us. Anti-socialism has been repeatedly used to attack reforms that shift power to working class people and away from corporate capital. In 1993, national health insurance was attacked as “socialized medicine” and defeated. Liberals are routinely denounced as socialists in order to discredit reform. Until we face, and beat, the stigma attached to the “S word,” politics in America will continue to be stifled and our options limited. We also call ourselves socialists because we are proud of the traditions upon which we are based, of the heritage of the Socialist Party of Eugene Debs and Norman Thomas, and of other struggles for change that have made America more democratic and just. Finally, we call ourselves socialists to remind everyone that we have a vision of a better world.

https://www.dsausa.org/about-us/what-is-democratic-socialism/


To clear up any confusion. Democratic Socialists are Socialists. They may or may not be Democrats.

Any questions?

Yes, Sir !  Me, me..  I have a question...

Why don't you move on from posting idiotic and irrelevant quotes from vague and unknown US-based far-right-whinge/"libertarian" disinformation sources  --  and extend your personal "research and study" into some more genuine, reliable and more widely-recognised sources  ?

Where you can find more accurate definitions, instead of the Libertarian-friendly lying garbage you keep on posting up on here..

You have demonstrated multiple times that you neither understand socialist systems, nor are you capable of admitting to the "broad church" model that the very concept of 'socialism' actually involves.

This link is to the Democratic Socialists of America website. The endorse Bernie and AOC.

You would have known that had you hit the link, instead of making a stupid assumption.

And please learn the difference between far right and libertarian.

Eilzel wrote:

Maddog wrote:

AOC is a socialist.  She admits as such.

Clinton and Obama are not.  

A Democratic Socialist, or Social Democrat (the way AOC and Sanders use the terms they are interchangeable). Not a socialist the way Castro, Mao or Chavez were socialists.

So no bogeymen here first of all.

Further, showing photos of similar awful treatment during Obama's presidency doesn't justify the same or worse in Trump's. It just means is this regard both were bad.

And the Right attacking AOC is what isn't new. And her using the term concentration camps is far more justified and reasonable than RW hystetics over losing free speech because of a few college campuses and insinuating Sanders or Warren would make the US like Venezuela

Putting "democratic" in front of the word socialist doesn't change anything.

It's still the same tired old socialism.

It's a marketing ploy like putting "new and improved" in front of an old product.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Maddog wrote:First, we call ourselves socialists because we are proud of what we are. Second, no matter what we call ourselves, conservatives will use it against us. Anti-socialism has been repeatedly used to attack reforms that shift power to working class people and away from corporate capital. In 1993, national health insurance was attacked as “socialized medicine” and defeated. Liberals are routinely denounced as socialists in order to discredit reform. Until we face, and beat, the stigma attached to the “S word,” politics in America will continue to be stifled and our options limited. We also call ourselves socialists because we are proud of the traditions upon which we are based, of the heritage of the Socialist Party of Eugene Debs and Norman Thomas, and of other struggles for change that have made America more democratic and just. Finally, we call ourselves socialists to remind everyone that we have a vision of a better world.

https://www.dsausa.org/about-us/what-is-democratic-socialism/


To clear up any confusion. Democratic Socialists are Socialists. They may or may not be Democrats.

Any questions?

Yes, Sir !  Me, me..  I have a question...

Why don't you move on from posting idiotic and irrelevant quotes from vague and unknown US-based far-right-whinge/"libertarian" disinformation sources  --  and extend your personal "research and study" into some more genuine, reliable and more widely-recognised sources  ?

Where you can find more accurate definitions, instead of the Libertarian-friendly lying garbage you keep on posting up on here..

You have demonstrated multiple times that you neither understand socialist systems, nor are you capable of admitting to the "broad church" model that the very concept of 'socialism' actually involves.

But at least we agree it's idiotic.

Much of the stuff on their site is. They're socialists, what do you expect?

I'm making progress with you.

Soon you will be denouncing the paternalism you have been so fond of.

Maddog wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Maddog wrote:

AOC is a socialist.  She admits as such.

Clinton and Obama are not.  

A Democratic Socialist, or Social Democrat (the way AOC and Sanders use the terms they are interchangeable). Not a socialist the way Castro, Mao or Chavez were socialists.

So no bogeymen here first of all.

Further, showing photos of similar awful treatment during Obama's presidency doesn't justify the same or worse in Trump's. It just means is this regard both were bad.

And the Right attacking AOC is what isn't new. And her using the term concentration camps is far more justified and reasonable than RW hystetics over losing free speech because of a few college campuses and insinuating Sanders or Warren would make the US like Venezuela

Putting "democratic" in front of the word socialist doesn't change anything.

It's still the same tired old socialism.

It's a marketing ploy like putting "new and improved" in front of an old product.  

So, apart from using the term 'democratic socialist' (when really she is a social democrat but you obviously don't want to acknowledge that fact because hey, words are easier to focus on...); what ACTUAL things is she pushing for that are 'socialism'?

Eilzel wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Putting "democratic" in front of the word socialist doesn't change anything.

It's still the same tired old socialism.

It's a marketing ploy like putting "new and improved" in front of an old product.  

So, apart from using the term 'democratic socialist' (when really she is a social democrat but you obviously don't want to acknowledge that fact because hey, words are easier to focus on...); what ACTUAL things is she pushing for that are 'socialism'?

Well you often bring up the Korean Social Democratic Party. Are they democratic to you? You see the problem with you Eilzel is are as gullible. As the people that voted for Hitler believing he believed in Socialism. As seen as soon as he enter power, within a year he purged the party of socialism. Here now we see idiots like Cortez, refuse to condemn Maduro and claim the situation is complicated. This is the sort of person who cannot condemn socialism, when it goes wrong. This shows and proves the dishonest nature of the US social democrats. As seen there is little democratic about them, when they cannot condenmn the babarity by Maduro socialism. As this is the kind of socialism they follow. That is why you are uttlerly naive on this. If in power, these dickheads would introduce similar policies. Which if you have seen the plans of Cortez, you would see would economically ruin the US.

phildidge wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Putting "democratic" in front of the word socialist doesn't change anything.

It's still the same tired old socialism.

It's a marketing ploy like putting "new and improved" in front of an old product.  

So, apart from using the term 'democratic socialist' (when really she is a social democrat but you obviously don't want to acknowledge that fact because hey, words are easier to focus on...); what ACTUAL things is she pushing for that are 'socialism'?

Well you often bring up the Korean Social Democratic Party. Are they democratic to you? You see the problem with you Eilzel is are as gullible. As the people that voted for Hitler believing he believed in Socialism. As seen as soon as he enter power, within a year he purged the party of socialism. Here now we see idiots like Cortez, refuse to condemn Maduro and claim the situation is complicated. This is the sort of person who cannot condemn socialism, when it goes wrong. This shows and proves the dishonest nature of the US social democrats. As seen there is little democratic about them, when they cannot condenmn the babarity by Maduro socialism. As this is the kind of socialism they follow. That is why you are uttlerly naive on this. If in power, these dickheads would introduce similar policies. Which if you have seen the plans of Cortez, you would see would economically ruin the US.

Which plans would see the ruin of the US?

Eilzel wrote:

phildidge wrote:

Well you often bring up the Korean Social Democratic Party. Are they democratic to you? You see the problem with you Eilzel is are as gullible. As the people that voted for Hitler believing he believed in Socialism. As seen as soon as he enter power, within a year he purged the party of socialism. Here now we see idiots like Cortez, refuse to condemn Maduro and claim the situation is complicated. This is the sort of person who cannot condemn socialism, when it goes wrong. This shows and proves the dishonest nature of the US social democrats. As seen there is little democratic about them, when they cannot condenmn the babarity by Maduro socialism. As this is the kind of socialism they follow. That is why you are uttlerly naive on this. If in power, these dickheads would introduce similar policies. Which if you have seen the plans of Cortez, you would see would economically ruin the US.

Which plans would see the ruin of the US?

Well her green plan would

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-02-08/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-s-green-new-deal-is-unaffordable

As she is meant to hav a degree in economics. Wow

This though really shows how poor she is on basic maths

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sMZNcxdoCA

I haven't got time to watch through 20 mins of almost certainly biased videos.

You tell me specifically which policies would ruin America - and how.

Thanks.

Eilzel wrote:I haven't got time to watch through 20 mins of almost certainly biased videos.

You tell me specifically which policies would ruin America - and how.

Thanks.

Bullshit and a copout excuse

If you are too lazy to watch, then read the link I posted, on how her green deal is unaffordable

I said the green deal and you have countered with naff all

You are simple living the pipe dream of continued failed socialism. It only works in small doses within capitlaism

Now I posted the vids to show she is as clueless as Diane abbott on figures and maths
I doubt anythiny I say or prove will change the mind of someone brainwashed with the cult of socialism

Skeptics of Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s promise of a Green New Deal were worried that the plan would be a Trojan horse for unrealistic and ruinously expensive economic proposals that have little to do with stopping climate change. The unveiling of the plan gives them more reason for worry. Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal appears to take every big spending idea that has emerged on the political left in recent years and combine them into one large package deal, with little notion of how to pay for them all.

The Green New Deal as introduced to Congress is in the form of a non-binding resolution laying out a series of goals. The wording of the resolution is ambitious, but vague. More concerning are the details of an online FAQ that appeared on Ocasio-Cortez’s website but was later taken down. The FAQ contained important details that are not included in the resolution itself. On Twitter, Ocasio-Cortez’s chief of staff, Saikat Chakrabarti, referred to the FAQ as a “bad copy,” and promised to release a revised version.


But the original FAQ may give insight into the Ocasio-Cortez camp’s true goals. And it shows that although the Green New Deal bills itself primarily as an environmental policy and jobs program, the most expensive items are enormous new entitlements paid for by unlimited deficit spending.

First, to be fair, it’s important to discuss the good ideas in the plan. The Green New Deal would retrofit all American buildings and factories to be carbon-neutral, electrify all transportation, and switch the entire electrical grid to carbon-neutral energy sources. These goals are highly ambitious, but they’re good targets. Ocasio-Cortez’s plan correctly recognizes that carbon taxes wouldn’t be enough to prompt private companies to do all these things on their own, and that large-scale government-funded infrastructure is required. Furthermore, a focus on scaling up clean energy would push the technology forward. That would help other countries — where most of the world’s carbon emissions are produced — to follow in the U.S’s footsteps.

But these environmental policies, as sweeping as they would be, wouldn’t be the most costly items on the list. Among other things, the now-removed FAQ stipulates that every American would be guaranteed the following:

1. “a job with family-sustaining wages, family and medical leave, vacations, and retirement security”
2. “high-quality education, including higher education and trade schools”
3. “high-quality health care”
4. “safe, affordable, adequate housing”
5. “economic security to all who are unable or unwilling to work”

The plan thus appears to combine a federal job guarantee, free college and single-payer health care. Depending on how one interprets the guarantee of “economic security” to all those who are “unwilling to work,” it might also include a universal basic income — something that was mentioned in an earlier Green New Deal proposal. The guarantee of universal affordable housing is, to my knowledge, new.

How much would these proposals cost? It’s hard to know. Senator Bernie Sanders’ Medicare for All proposal was predicted to cost about $3.2 trillion a year. Switching to renewable energy would conservatively cost more than $400 billion annually. Even though the cost is coming down as technology improves, net-zero emissions retrofits of every building in the country would be expensive — optimistically, perhaps $88,000 for a townhouse, and presumably much more for free-standing homes. Assuming $100,000 per home, that comes to about $1.4 trillion a year over a decade. Factories, office buildings, stores, etc. would cost much more per building, but there are far fewer of them — about 5.6 million. If each one costs $500,000 to retrofit, that’s about $300 billion more per year.

For universal basic income, the cost has been estimated at $3.8 trillion a year. A narrower program that only covered, say, one out of three Americans who are “unable or unwilling” to work, it would cost about $1.3 trillion. By comparison, free college would be cheap at about $47 billion a year. Affordable housing for the entire nation could cost a lot, depending on what that means, but let’s ignore that for now.

So this quick, rough cost estimate — which doesn’t include all of the promises listed in the FAQ — adds up to about $6.6 trillion a year. That’s more than three times as much as the federal government collects in tax revenue, and equal to about 34 percent of the U.S.’s entire gross domestic product. And that’s assuming no cost overruns — infrastructure projects, especially in the U.S., are subject to cost bloat. Total government spending already accounts for about 38 percent of the economy, so if no other programs were cut to pay for the Green New Deal, it could mean that almost three-quarters of the economy would be spent via the government.

And all this is assuming that repurposing essentially all of the nation’s economic resources doesn’t cause any loss in economic efficiency. History and the experiences of other countries suggest that this wouldn’t be the case.

Most troubling, the Green New Deal’s FAQ sidesteps the question of how to pay for the plan. It simply links to two op-eds explaining so-called modern monetary theory, or MMT, which posits that deficits don’t matter all that much in the absence of inflation for those countries that issue their own currency.

This suggests that the Green New Deal will be paid for with soaring deficits, which could be quite dangerous. The plan’s environmental spending proposals would be temporary, but the new entitlement programs would be permanent. If MMT is wrong, and if ever-expanding deficits cause runaway inflation, the result would be a devastating collapse of the nation’s economy. Hyperinflation has never happened in the U.S., but then again, neither has anything like the Green New Deal. A wholesale breakdown of the U.S. economy wouldn’t do much to arrest climate change, nor would it provide an enviable example to the rest of the world, upon whose emissions reductions the planet’s future actually depends.

So although a big push for renewable energy is needed, the Green New Deal’s vast program for economic egalitarianism could make it unworkable. Let’s hope the FAQ doesn’t represent the final version of the plan, and the sweeping proposals for economic restructuring — especially basic income — can be dropped in favor of a tighter focus on reducing carbon emissions. But if the now-deleted FAQ represents Ocasio-Cortez’s true plans, the answer to the question of “Do you support the Green New Deal?” will have to be “No.”

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-02-08/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-s-green-new-deal-is-unaffordable

Hypocrite Ocasio-Cortez REFUSES To Provide Humanitarian Aide Then COMPLAINS



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YD9ohDy7kog

Eilzel wrote:I haven't got time to watch through 20 mins of almost certainly biased videos.

You tell me specifically which policies would ruin America - and how.

Thanks.

Didge is not into understanding the issues.  C & P only for him only, please.  

phildidge wrote:Skeptics of Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s promise of a Green New Deal were worried that the plan would be a Trojan horse for unrealistic and ruinously expensive economic proposals that have little to do with stopping climate change. The unveiling of the plan gives them more reason for worry. Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal appears to take every big spending idea that has emerged on the political left in recent years and combine them into one large package deal, with little notion of how to pay for them all.

The Green New Deal as introduced to Congress is in the form of a non-binding resolution laying out a series of goals. The wording of the resolution is ambitious, but vague. More concerning are the details of an online FAQ that appeared on Ocasio-Cortez’s website but was later taken down. The FAQ contained important details that are not included in the resolution itself. On Twitter, Ocasio-Cortez’s chief of staff, Saikat Chakrabarti, referred to the FAQ as a “bad copy,” and promised to release a revised version.


But the original FAQ may give insight into the Ocasio-Cortez camp’s true goals. And it shows that although the Green New Deal bills itself primarily as an environmental policy and jobs program, the most expensive items are enormous new entitlements paid for by unlimited deficit spending.

First, to be fair, it’s important to discuss the good ideas in the plan. The Green New Deal would retrofit all American buildings and factories to be carbon-neutral, electrify all transportation, and switch the entire electrical grid to carbon-neutral energy sources. These goals are highly ambitious, but they’re good targets. Ocasio-Cortez’s plan correctly recognizes that carbon taxes wouldn’t be enough to prompt private companies to do all these things on their own, and that large-scale government-funded infrastructure is required. Furthermore, a focus on scaling up clean energy would push the technology forward. That would help other countries — where most of the world’s carbon emissions are produced — to follow in the U.S’s footsteps.

But these environmental policies, as sweeping as they would be, wouldn’t be the most costly items on the list. Among other things, the now-removed FAQ stipulates that every American would be guaranteed the following:

1. “a job with family-sustaining wages, family and medical leave, vacations, and retirement security”
2. “high-quality education, including higher education and trade schools”
3. “high-quality health care”
4. “safe, affordable, adequate housing”
5. “economic security to all who are unable or unwilling to work”

The plan thus appears to combine a federal job guarantee, free college and single-payer health care. Depending on how one interprets the guarantee of “economic security” to all those who are “unwilling to work,” it might also include a universal basic income — something that was mentioned in an earlier Green New Deal proposal. The guarantee of universal affordable housing is, to my knowledge, new.

How much would these proposals cost? It’s hard to know. Senator Bernie Sanders’ Medicare for All proposal was predicted to cost about $3.2 trillion a year. Switching to renewable energy would conservatively cost more than $400 billion annually. Even though the cost is coming down as technology improves, net-zero emissions retrofits of every building in the country would be expensive — optimistically, perhaps $88,000 for a townhouse, and presumably much more for free-standing homes. Assuming $100,000 per home, that comes to about $1.4 trillion a year over a decade. Factories, office buildings, stores, etc. would cost much more per building, but there are far fewer of them — about 5.6 million. If each one costs $500,000 to retrofit, that’s about $300 billion more per year.

For universal basic income, the cost has been estimated at $3.8 trillion a year. A narrower program that only covered, say, one out of three Americans who are “unable or unwilling” to work, it would cost about $1.3 trillion. By comparison, free college would be cheap at about $47 billion a year. Affordable housing for the entire nation could cost a lot, depending on what that means, but let’s ignore that for now.

So this quick, rough cost estimate — which doesn’t include all of the promises listed in the FAQ — adds up to about $6.6 trillion a year. That’s more than three times as much as the federal government collects in tax revenue, and equal to about 34 percent of the U.S.’s entire gross domestic product. And that’s assuming no cost overruns — infrastructure projects, especially in the U.S., are subject to cost bloat. Total government spending already accounts for about 38 percent of the economy, so if no other programs were cut to pay for the Green New Deal, it could mean that almost three-quarters of the economy would be spent via the government.

And all this is assuming that repurposing essentially all of the nation’s economic resources doesn’t cause any loss in economic efficiency. History and the experiences of other countries suggest that this wouldn’t be the case.

Most troubling, the Green New Deal’s FAQ sidesteps the question of how to pay for the plan. It simply links to two op-eds explaining so-called modern monetary theory, or MMT, which posits that deficits don’t matter all that much in the absence of inflation for those countries that issue their own currency.

This suggests that the Green New Deal will be paid for with soaring deficits, which could be quite dangerous. The plan’s environmental spending proposals would be temporary, but the new entitlement programs would be permanent. If MMT is wrong, and if ever-expanding deficits cause runaway inflation, the result would be a devastating collapse of the nation’s economy. Hyperinflation has never happened in the U.S., but then again, neither has anything like the Green New Deal. A wholesale breakdown of the U.S. economy wouldn’t do much to arrest climate change, nor would it provide an enviable example to the rest of the world, upon whose emissions reductions the planet’s future actually depends.

So although a big push for renewable energy is needed, the Green New Deal’s vast program for economic egalitarianism could make it unworkable. Let’s hope the FAQ doesn’t represent the final version of the plan, and the sweeping proposals for economic restructuring — especially basic income — can be dropped in favor of a tighter focus on reducing carbon emissions. But if the now-deleted FAQ represents Ocasio-Cortez’s true plans, the answer to the question of “Do you support the Green New Deal?” will have to be “No.”

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-02-08/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-s-green-new-deal-is-unaffordable

Actually didge posts the views of economists that think her plan is unworkable, as seen above

I'm sorry mate, but I can find articles which say the contrary, that is affordable and so on. That isn't a debate I want to have. I prefer to actually discuss point not say 'look what I found'.