ADVERTISEMENT

OOTB's Political Thread . ..

Hark_The_Sound_2010 said:
Sure it does. "Progressives" are great at opining on how much of your money should be taxed and where those taxes should be spent, while simultaneously thinking it doesn't apply to them. And of course a public company is going to attempt to pay the least amount of tax possible regardless of their politics - they owe it to their shareholders to do so.
Click to expand...

Corporations have turned progressivism into something that people think they can purchase. Why actually do anything when you can buy a product from a "woke" company? Virtue signalling works the same way. "I don't actually do anything to help anyone, but everyone can see how woke I am online!" It's a bunch of crap.
 
Hark_The_Sound_2010 said:
Sure it does. "Progressives" are great at opining on how much of your money should be taxed and where those taxes should be spent, while simultaneously thinking it doesn't apply to them. And of course a public company is going to attempt to pay the least amount of tax possible regardless of their politics - they owe it to their shareholders to do so.
Click to expand...

You’re gonna have to show your work on that one. Is that like when conservatives opine about how abortion should be illegal while paying their mistresses to have them? Or opining about the sin of being gay while they diddle the choir boys behind the altar?

I’m pretty sure most progressives don’t think they are exempt from paying taxes.
 
NoleSoup4U said:
Mexico promises to step up border security, Trump cancels threat of tariffs

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/jun/7/donald-trump-says-mexico-has-reached-deal-border-c/

We'll see if Mexico follows through. Supposedly there is a written agreement this time to force Mexico's hand, but I haven't been able to corroborate that part of the story. However, it is being reported that Mexico has been arresting migrants and especially migrant leaders.
Click to expand...
Hopefully this agreement will be at least as good as the one he hammered out for us in North Korea.
 
trap-bernie32-768x554.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: heelbent
NoleSoup4U said:
So, what is your definition of both?
Click to expand...

Socialism is the public ownership of the means and modes of production.

Social democrat / democratic socialist is an interchangeable term that’s been around since FDR. They advocate for a mixed economy with private ownership of the means and modes of production, but also strong labor rights and a social safety net. The primary focus of government should be to make the lives of citizens better.

The bUt BeRnIe Is A sOcIaliSt crowd are morons that have never read a page of Marx, yet they think they know what socialism is. Newsflash: tax and spend is not socialism.
 
uncboy10 said:
Socialism is the public ownership of the means and modes of production.

Social democrat / democratic socialist is an interchangeable term that’s been around since FDR. They advocate for a mixed economy with private ownership of the means and modes of production, but also strong labor rights and a social safety net. The primary focus of government should be to make the lives of citizens better.

The bUt BeRnIe Is A sOcIaliSt crowd are morons that have never read a page of Marx, yet they think they know what socialism is. Newsflash: tax and spend is not socialism.
Click to expand...

Okay, so it's really fascism/corporatism, but even more so, which is an offshoot of socialism.
 
NoleSoup4U said:
Okay, so it's really fascism/corporatism, but even more so, which is an offshoot of socialism.
Click to expand...

Fascism is a right wing authoritarian ideology, and corporatism is literally the opposite of strong labor rights.

But yeah keep telling us about how Bernie Sanders is a corporatist. This has to be the stupidest shit you’ve ever said, and the competition is strong.
 
uncboy10 said:
Fascism is a right wing authoritarian ideology, and corporatism is literally the opposite of strong labor rights.

But yeah keep telling us about how Bernie Sanders is a corporatist. This has to be the stupidest shit you’ve ever said, and the competition is strong.
Click to expand...

Economic fascism is the combination of government and corporations. It's just another name for corporatism. Most people equate fascism with authoritarianism nowadays, but that really isn't what it was all about. What I want to know is how expanding government, which is the number one reason for corporatism, is somehow going to stop corporatism? Do you understand how ridiculous this sounds?
 
NoleSoup4U said:
Economic fascism is the combination of government and corporations. It's just another name for corporatism. Most people equate fascism with authoritarianism nowadays, but that really isn't what it was all about. What I want to know is how expanding government, which is the number one reason for corporatism, is somehow going to stop corporatism? Do you understand how ridiculous this sounds?
Click to expand...

You are ridiculously misinformed. It’s actually kinda sad.

Economic fascism is not a thing. You literally made that shit up. Fascism is an authoritarian right wing, usually nationalistic, form of governance. That’s the definition now, and always has been the definition. Inventing terms to serve your ridiculous right wing views is just kinda sad.

The primary causes of corporatism are campaign finance laws and the revolving door between lobbyists and congressmen. They use this corruption to achieve regulatory capture, or to avoid regulation so they can externalize costs like pollution.

Socialism and corporatism are literally polar opposites. Bernie is neither of those things. You can’t seem to make up your mind between two laughably stupid, contradictory arguments.

Those YouTube videos have rotted your brain.
 
uncboy10 said:
You are ridiculously misinformed. It’s actually kinda sad.

Economic fascism is not a thing. You literally made that shit up. Fascism is an authoritarian right wing, usually nationalistic, form of governance. That’s the definition now, and always has been the definition. Inventing terms to serve your ridiculous right wing views is just kinda sad.

The primary causes of corporatism are campaign finance laws and the revolving door between lobbyists and congressmen. They use this corruption to achieve regulatory capture, or to avoid regulation so they can externalize costs like pollution.

Socialism and corporatism are literally polar opposites. Bernie is neither of those things. You can’t seem to make up your mind between two laughably stupid, contradictory arguments.

Those YouTube videos have rotted your brain.
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm sure fascism didn't have any kind of economic identity. They were all just anti-Semites and hatemongers...oh wait!

https://fee.org/articles/economic-fascism/#0

You still haven't answered my question. How is giving more power to the government going to stop the problems caused by the government? You act like corporatism wasn't a thing before Citizen's United.
 
NoleSoup4U said:
Yes, I'm sure fascism didn't have any kind of economic identity. They were all just anti-Semites and hatemongers...oh wait!

https://fee.org/articles/economic-fascism/#0

You still haven't answered my question. How is giving more power to the government going to stop the problems caused by the government? You act like corporatism wasn't a thing before Citizen's United.
Click to expand...

I never said they didn’t have an economic identity. I’m sure lots of fascists were also corporatists. That doesn’t make “economic fascism” a thing. You can’t have fascism without the authoritarian right wing government. Corporatism on its own is still just corporatism. Not “economic fascism.”

Bernie has advocated for campaign finance reform, and ending the revolving door. That would reduce the influence of corporations on government. Corporatism isn’t caused by government being too big. It’s caused by the corporate model, and a lack of proper regulation, while improper regulation prevents competition. A lack of regulation is just as bad as over regulation. That’s what you right wing libertarian types never understand. You completely fail to grasp the fact that governments are not monolithic. Two governments can be the same size, and govern in a completely different manner. It’s actually kinda funny listening to you throw around the word government as a generic term like all governments are the same.
 
I’m done here. I’m not going to waste any more time trying to unindoctrinate someone. I’ve got better shit to do today.
 
uncboy10 said:
I never said they didn’t have an economic identity. I’m sure lots of fascists were also corporatists. That doesn’t make “economic fascism” a thing. You can’t have fascism without the authoritarian right wing government. Corporatism on its own is still just corporatism. Not “economic fascism.”

Bernie has advocated for campaign finance reform, and ending the revolving door. That would reduce the influence of corporations on government. Corporatism isn’t caused by government being too big. It’s caused by the corporate model, and a lack of proper regulation, while improper regulation prevents competition. A lack of regulation is just as bad as over regulation. That’s what you right wing libertarian types never understand. You completely fail to grasp the fact that governments are not monolithic. Two governments can be the same size, and govern in a completely different manner. It’s actually kinda funny listening to you throw around the word government as a generic term like all governments are the same.
Click to expand...
uncboy10 said:
I’m done here. I’m not going to waste any more time trying to unindoctrinate someone. I’ve got better shit to do today.
Click to expand...

Yeah, after that FEE article, I would be done as well. You were wrong, once again. Of course, then there's the inability to answer the big question. You just keep telling me I don't know anything while yelling about Citizen's United even though corporatism was an issue long before that Supreme Court case. You have nothing, so you better exit stage right.

As far as regulations, nobody is arguing for no regulations. However, massive regulations hammer away at smaller firms that can't handle them like the larger firms can. It creates a barrier to entry in a field and therefore crushes competition.

Edit: I also like the dig at Youtube videos. I guess an economics lecture at Harvard is nothing more than trite pablum.
 
Last edited:
dadika13 said:
Everything with you are these dumb acronyms or -isms.

Listen to my boy Ferris

giphy.gif
Click to expand...

Lets see, a gif of Ferris Bueller against an article from the Foundation for Economic Education? Tough choice!

Edit: BTW, not believing in a "ism" doesn't mean that they don't exist. I think you missed the point of your own gif.
 
Last edited:
NoleSoup4U said:
Yeah, after that FEE article, I would be done as well. You were wrong, once again. Of course, then there's the inability to answer the big question. You just keep telling me I don't know anything while yelling about Citizen's United even though corporatism was an issue long before that Supreme Court case. You have nothing, so you better exit stage right.

As far as regulations, nobody is arguing for no regulations. However, massive regulations hammer away at smaller firms that can't handle them like the larger firms can. It creates a barrier to entry in a field and therefore crushes competition.

Edit: I also like the dig at Youtube videos. I guess an economics lecture at Harvard is nothing more than trite pablum.
Click to expand...

1. You shared an op ed. From 1994. I have a degree in economics. Economic fascism is not a term used by anyone I’ve ever heard of. I googled the definition and term you gave and literally nothing comes up. Anyone can cherry pick an article. Do better.

2. I never even mentioned citizens united. You were the first to bring it up. I never suggested that cronyism between government and corporations began with citizens united. This kinda stuff really makes you sound like you have a mental illness. And that’s not even meant to be a silly insult. I’m dead serious.

3. Unlike you I actually have shit to do with my day besides endlessly trolling another team’s off topic board with inane political posts. This is another point that suggests mental illness.

4. There is obviously an efficient level of regulation. I already said that in some instances, regulatory capture is the problem, and in other cases, the problem is under regulation. Maybe you should google the term regulatory capture so you can keep up next time.

5. Have a good one.
 
Regulation in moderation isn't the worst thing. Granted, I think the crowd pushing for it will take it too far. But the social safety net is the part that makes me hope they never get the chance. Sounds great to those who plan on using the safety net, but terrible to those who will have to finance the building of it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nctransplant
uncboy10 said:
1. You shared an op ed. From 1994. I have a degree in economics. Economic fascism is not a term used by anyone I’ve ever heard of. I googled the definition and term you gave and literally nothing comes up. Anyone can cherry pick an article. Do better.

2. I never even mentioned citizens united. You were the first to bring it up. I never suggested that cronyism between government and corporations began with citizens united. This kinda stuff really makes you sound like you have a mental illness. And that’s not even meant to be a silly insult. I’m dead serious.

3. Unlike you I actually have shit to do with my day besides endlessly trolling another team’s off topic board with inane political posts. This is another point that suggests mental illness.

4. There is obviously an efficient level of regulation. I already said that in some instances, regulatory capture is the problem, and in other cases, the problem is under regulation. Maybe you should google the term regulatory capture so you can keep up next time.

5. Have a good one.
Click to expand...

1. Attempted argument from authority (I'm guessing that the people at FEE have economic degrees as well, not that it should make a difference in an argument). Weak.

2. Citizen's United is directly linked with campaign donations, which was your point.

3. I have stuff to do, but I still find time to bring the light to the heathens! And who cares what board it's on? You kind of sound like you say Trump sounds right about now... :cool:

4. Regulations are already too harsh and your view seems to be that there aren't enough of them. That sounds like a recipe for economic disaster.

5. You too, buddy! :D

Edit1: Another article that I found:

https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html

Question. How many articles do I have to find before you'll accept the argument behind it, especially since the implied father of fascism is behind my argument?

Edit2: The Wikipedia page that I found. They even have a whole section on "fascist corporatism"... Imagine that!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism
 
Last edited:
Hark_The_Sound_2010 said:
but terrible to those who will have to finance the building of it.
Click to expand...
Unless... you become one who needs it and then very relieved that you contributed when you could. Not everyone "plans on using it." Not everyone is trying to scam the system so they can be lazy for life. In fact, I'm inclined to believe that the percentage who succeed in doing that is very small. If you're so independently wealthy that it's impossible for you to EVER need the net, then what's the problem? You won't have enough ivory back-scratchers, Mr. Burns?
 
strummingram said:
Unless... you become one who needs it and then very relieved that you contributed when you could. Not everyone "plans on using it." Not everyone is trying to scam the system so they can be lazy for life. In fact, I'm inclined to believe that the percentage who succeed in doing that is very small. If you're so independently wealthy that it's impossible for you to EVER need the net, then what's the problem? You won't have enough ivory back-scratchers, Mr. Burns?
Click to expand...

Who says that he's using that money to buy ivory back-scratcher? Maybe he's using that money to employ someone else.
 
NoleSoup4U said:
Who says that he's using that money to buy ivory back-scratcher? Maybe he's using that money to employ someone else.
Click to expand...
Right... that's not the point. That's not even what he was referring to. I was being specious about the back-scratcher. He implied that people like him are going to always be footing-the-bill for freeloaders and never be in a situation where they might actually need that financial help themselves. If you're so wealthy that you can never become indigent, then I don't understand the greed. You won't miss it.

And, I'm sure that people who are pissed about paying more in taxes are bummed because they were going to use that extra dough to hire someone to... maintain their topiary?
 
strummingram said:
Right... that's not the point. That's not even what he was referring to. I was being specious about the back-scratcher. He implied that people like him are going to always be footing-the-bill for freeloaders and never be in a situation where they might actually need that financial help themselves. If you're so wealthy that you can never become indigent, then I don't understand the greed. You won't miss it.

And, I'm sure that people who are pissed about paying more in taxes are bummed because they were going to use that extra dough to hire someone to... maintain their topiary?
Click to expand...

Where do you think jobs come from? They come from capital. If he has to give more capital to the government, that means he can't hire as many people.
 
strummingram said:
Unless... you become one who needs it and then very relieved that you contributed when you could. Not everyone "plans on using it." Not everyone is trying to scam the system so they can be lazy for life. In fact, I'm inclined to believe that the percentage who succeed in doing that is very small. If you're so independently wealthy that it's impossible for you to EVER need the net, then what's the problem? You won't have enough ivory back-scratchers, Mr. Burns?
Click to expand...

I never inserted myself into the equation, to say that I am too rich to ever be poor. And yes, if I were to ever be destitute, you're damn right I'd be happy it was there. But that's the thing with policy, is you need to take your own warm fuzzies out of it.

You're right not all, or even most abuse it. But some do. I don't think it's right to make people pay for others. I feel like people should donate if they have the means, and desire, but if they don't, they don't.
 
  • Like
Reactions: plm
Hark_The_Sound_2010 said:
I never inserted myself into the equation, to say that I am too rich to ever be poor. And yes, if I were to ever be destitute, you're damn right I'd be happy it was there. But that's the thing with policy, is you need to take your own warm fuzzies out of it.

You're right not all, or even most abuse it. But some do. I don't think it's right to make people pay for others. I feel like people should donate if they have the means, and desire, but if they don't, they don't.
Click to expand...
Well, it's next to impossible to remove yourself from human feeling and a sense of empathy. You do what's "right" because you believe it is the "right thing" to do. What goes around comes around. And, being compelled to go out of your way to help others is a very subjective impulse. If you're someone who is "wealthy" then you're set. Wealth is indestructible. Chris Rock was right- "Wealth is forever. Rich people go broke all the time." If you're wealthy, then you probably have the best CPA and attorneys to allow you to dodge any taxation, as well as buying the government to accommodate you as well.

Being opposed to it because a very small percentage take advantage of it isn't enough for me. I realize that it is important to keep philosophical idealism out of "policy." But, when you think about it, that is the impetus for any of this even being considered. It's been an evolving thing. I remember learning about the book "How The Other Half Lives" being introduced into society. It really sparked a reaction that turned into efforts to alleviate it. Some private and some through governmental policy. We live in a monetary-based society. It's totally based on "How much stuff do I have and how can I get more?"

I'm not entirely confident in government operations to improve "lifestyle" choices or living conditions in general. However, I'd be lying if I said there hadn't been impressive advancements and results from some of the efforts. It's never perfect, and it always needs to be refined.
 
strummingram said:
Well, it's next to impossible to remove yourself from human feeling and a sense of empathy. You do what's "right" because you believe it is the "right thing" to do. What goes around comes around. And, being compelled to go out of your way to help others is a very subjective impulse. If you're someone who is "wealthy" then you're set. Wealth is indestructible. Chris Rock was right- "Wealth is forever. Rich people go broke all the time." If you're wealthy, then you probably have the best CPA and attorneys to allow you to dodge any taxation, as well as buying the government to accommodate you as well.

Being opposed to it because a very small percentage take advantage of it isn't enough for me. I realize that it is important to keep philosophical idealism out of "policy." But, when you think about it, that is the impetus for any of this even being considered. It's been an evolving thing. I remember learning about the book "How The Other Half Lives" being introduced into society. It really sparked a reaction that turned into efforts to alleviate it. Some private and some through governmental policy. We live in a monetary-based society. It's totally based on "How much stuff do I have and how can I get more?"

I'm not entirely confident in government operations to improve "lifestyle" choices or living conditions in general. However, I'd be lying if I said there hadn't been impressive advancements and results from some of the efforts. It's never perfect, and it always needs to be refined.
Click to expand...

You should check out Steven Pinker’s work if you haven’t already. Obviously it’s hard to prove causality, but improvements in quality of life have correlated very strongly with the implementation of government social safety nets. Pinker is a bit too optimistic for my taste but he does a good job of illustrating how much better life has gotten across time. I don’t think there should be any doubt that these types of programs have increased the mean quality of life.

Improving “lifestyle choices” is a different story. Usually that’s the “family values” crowd trying to push their religious bullshit on everyone else.
 
uncboy10 said:
You should check out Steven Pinker’s work if you haven’t already. Obviously it’s hard to prove causality, but improvements in quality of life have correlated very strongly with the implementation of government social safety nets. Pinker is a bit too optimistic for my taste but he does a good job of illustrating how much better life has gotten across time. I don’t think there should be any doubt that these types of programs have increased the mean quality of life.

Improving “lifestyle choices” is a different story. Usually that’s the “family values” crowd trying to push their religious bullshit on everyone else.
Click to expand...

Improvements in life have to do with technological advances, not government intervention.
 
strummingram said:
Well, it's next to impossible to remove yourself from human feeling and a sense of empathy. You do what's "right" because you believe it is the "right thing" to do. What goes around comes around. And, being compelled to go out of your way to help others is a very subjective impulse. If you're someone who is "wealthy" then you're set. Wealth is indestructible. Chris Rock was right- "Wealth is forever. Rich people go broke all the time." If you're wealthy, then you probably have the best CPA and attorneys to allow you to dodge any taxation, as well as buying the government to accommodate you as well.

Being opposed to it because a very small percentage take advantage of it isn't enough for me. I realize that it is important to keep philosophical idealism out of "policy." But, when you think about it, that is the impetus for any of this even being considered. It's been an evolving thing. I remember learning about the book "How The Other Half Lives" being introduced into society. It really sparked a reaction that turned into efforts to alleviate it. Some private and some through governmental policy. We live in a monetary-based society. It's totally based on "How much stuff do I have and how can I get more?"

I'm not entirely confident in government operations to improve "lifestyle" choices or living conditions in general. However, I'd be lying if I said there hadn't been impressive advancements and results from some of the efforts. It's never perfect, and it always needs to be refined.
Click to expand...

You probably don't realize it, but you just made a great argument for the abolishment of The Income Tax and corporate taxes. Welcome to the good guys! :D
 
"Al Qaeda did not yell 'Death To Tribeca!'"

I wonder if Stewart will ever run for office? He just laid down a heavy duty speech to a barely-present congressional audience and a bunch of 9/11 first responders who will never forget it.

 
  • Like
Reactions: Hark_The_Sound_2010 and uncboy10
You’d think a political strategist would be smart enough to have his hard drives wiped. Republicans sure do like rigging elections.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

W

Game Thread

Replies
5
Views
324
Tar Heel Blitz
WoadBlue
W
andrew jones

LIVE: ACC TipOff Thread

Replies
22
Views
391
Four Corners
tarwhiz
T
andrew jones

Class of 2027 Thread (Update 9-24: SC WR intel added)

Replies
3
Views
571
Blue Heaven
Lee Wardlaw
L
Steat

UNC vs Elon Prediction Thread, Monday, November 4, 2024, 9PM (ODDS UP)

Replies
4
Views
489
Four Corners
tarheel0910
tarheel0910
andrew jones

Preseason Honors Thread

Replies
1
Views
233
Blue Heaven
andrew jones
andrew jones
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back