Alexandira Ocasio-Cortez is a result of Trump

If you know this then why do you keep arguing against socialism? Who are you arguing against? No one wants a Venezuela style government, people like Ocasio-Cortez are simply fighting for programs like single payer healthcare - programs every other wealthy country in the world has.

So why deliberately misrepresent that if you do actually understand what a mixed market economy is?

I've asked you this before and yet you just keep at it relentlessly. Why? What purpose does it serve to be deliberately obtuse?

 

It's the latest right wing propaganda ploy, led by the Donald himself. No matter if it's true, so long as it works. If you can't make 'em afraid of Muslims and Mexicans, try Socialists.

 

6

Oh man, I don’t think I’ve met anyone so lacking in self-awareness as you, so much so that I’m beginning to see it as self-parody

I mean exhibit A

This from the person that is best known here for been unable to defend his ideas from criticism and constantly runs away when challenged, a statement like this from you can only be seen as a joke.

Yet you have defended ‘fat-shaming’ because you think ‘fat’ girls are ugly and this also seems a good time to repeat your ‘joke’ about feminists

I'd never fuck a feminist. Bestiality is illegal where I'm from

LOL and again this from the person that has spent most of his time here trying to sow the seeds of hatred and division.

As I said it’s either self-parody or you are suffering from delusions.

I get the feeling you think of yourself as some type of noble warrior fighting for truth but a warrior that keeps falling flat on their face and then runs away whenever challenged gets a different reputation than noble.

 

6

We have covered this before (but you ran away).

As pointed out you seemed very happy been connected to the alt-right and even comfortable with knowing that there were racists amongst the alt-right.

Here you are -

As most of you are well aware, there is a new movement that came to fruition in the last year alone called the Alt-Right. Who is the Alt-Right? Various political leaders and journalists have attempted to define the Alt-Right with simplistic rhetoric and varying degrees of accuracy and fallacy. Hillary defined the Alt-Right as a phenomenon that emerged from the dark corners of the internet as a racist ideology. Salon says its basically white nationalism. While I cannot say this is completely untrue, the fact is racism identifies with no one single political ideology. Some racists identify alt-right, but the movement is more diverse than that. Yet the media has misrepresented the movement by painting every member with a single paint stroke. Personally I'd define the alt-right as an alternative to the dying generation of neo-conservatism of the Bush years, and the dwindling popularity of basic republicanism. One thing most of them have in common is their utter disgust in corporate globalism, global governance, and wasteful interventionism. They despise identity politics, censorship, and language policing. [my bold]

Anyway talking to some ‘right wing libertarian types like yourself I get the impression that just like many of the Nazis they are less interested in genuine political thought and debate and more interested in promoting grievance and in trying to misdirect and in scapegoat others. For example in seeming to blame all problems on shadowy ‘left wing’ conspiracies of lefties, socialists, globalists, feminists, political correctionists and identity politics social justice warriors.

 

6

Also in another debate (that you ran away from) is was shown that right wing libertarian thought (like the Nazis) is based on Social Darwinist thinking.

Here is a post I posted to Okie

Now many people have pointed out the National Socialists seem to have had had more affinity with Social Darwinist ideas than they did with socialist ones and its why many link the Nazis with the right wing spectrum as so many strands of right wing thought are based on Social Darwinist thinking.

So could it be argued that actually 6, with his Social Darwinist based thinking, actually has more in common with the Nazis than modern day socialist that reject it completely? LOL

*

Well there are certainly differing strands in Social Darwinist but all basically come back to the idea that there are ‘naturally’ occurring inferior and superior people (they often bring up the idea of fast runners and slow runners) and that humans are locked in a Darwinist competition for position and from which the fittest would reveal themselves by been in socially superior position than the inferior.

This was attractive to those already were in socially superior position (and used their wealth to promote it) as it gave the fig leaf of a justification for social and political inequality.

A lot of modern free market and neoliberal ideas are based on pseudo-scientific ideas of Social Darwinism although they would not like to admit this.

Social Darwinism also appealing to imperialists and racists. If you had conquered and were ruling over another country or group of people then it stood to reason that in Darwinist terms you must be ‘scientifically’ superior and should rule over them, and from that it is a short step to racism, the view that some races were superior to others.

But Social Darwinism always comes back to what is to be done with the inferior? The Social Darwinist manta is ‘survival of the fittest’ so what should happen to the unfit, follow the logic of the manta and it would seem to be not survive. For many imperialists and racist that was fine but what about the more ‘civilised’ ideas promoted by the free marketeers and neo-liberals?

Well it seems to me that many free market and right wing liberation types would be content with a ‘work or starve’ type of society and at least one was happy to say that he’d be happy if starvation did happen and death was the result of it.

Also it should be remembered that in societies with high levels of inequality (that neo-liberalism brings about) the disadvantaged have shorter lives than the advantaged and in places were healthcare is based on ability to pay (another free market idea) the poorer are even more likely to die earlier than the richer.

Here is a quote from the great champion of Social Darwinism, Herbert Spencer -

It seems hard that a labourer incapacitated by sickness from competing with his stronger fellows should have to bear the resulting privations. It seems hard that widows and orphans should be left to struggle for life or death. Nevertheless, when regarded not separately, but in connection with the interests of universal humanity, these harsh fatalities are seen to be full of the highest beneficence…the same beneficence that brings to early graves the children of diseased parents, and singles out the low-spirited, the intemperate, and the debilitated as the victims of an epidemic. . .

 

6

Actually this is just perpetuating a Nazis myth there was a thread in Nazis propaganda that wanted to portray Jews as rich degenerate fat cats that exploited the good decent German folk.

But the reality was that they were just normal people

Jews could be found in all walks of life, as farmers, tailors, seamstresses, factory hands, accountants, doctors, teachers, and small-business owners. Some families were wealthy; many more were poor.

Once again I think you need to read a bit more widely.

Anyway it seems to me that this is your problem you base your beliefs on bias and lack of knowledge with the desire to smear your opponents and bamboozle the unwary, as I say it’s very similar to how the Nazis worked.

 

So you think the pond scum who proclaimed that the bereaved Sandy Hook parents were actors, subjecting them to harassment and death friends from his loony followers, is "good people"? And this simply because he was "unpersoned by the social media oligarchy"? Why should anybody take you seriously?

 

I really wish this counted for you. But unfortunately it is rhetoric nonsense. You are a guarantee for repetitive arguments about muslims, immigrants, socialism, feminism, etc. In these discussions people are generally correcting you. They get little satisfaction out of it because they know you quit after being told right (or you say you were simply joking) and then start a very similar argument some time later.
The challenge is not to counter the supposedly challenging content of your words, but to garner up the patience to correct your sources, your opinions that are posed as fact, or stances and elaborations that contradict with your statement that you don't discriminate

 

I think she is totally brilliant. Ocasio-Cortez Unveils Green New Deal to Reset Climate Policy

...

 

Did anyone catch her interview on NPR this morning? I thought she did very well.

There was some pushback in the commentary following the interview regarding her views on deficit spending - which I dont really get, The Affordable Healthcare Act also was created with deficit spending (isnt everything, because we're in a huge deficit) and didnt receive that same level of pushback- among more liberal news sources like NPR, at any rate. And she's 100% right of course, in that we need to look at certain things as investments and money invested will yield a greater return. They compared it to Trump's tax cuts, blech. Thats just lazy journalism.

Dont know about yall but i'm getting a little frustrated with those who regard any big, forward thinking idea as some impossible, pie in the sky thing. Like sure guys, lets just never do anything to improve our country ever again, that should end well

 

Ms. Smith goes to Washington

 

Because the quality of their healthcare sucks thanks to their zero-competitive government-made monopolistic system, filled with price controls and weaponized regulation.

The left used to LOVE Chavez & Maduro. Now they're all hush hush about it

If the left wants a mixed market economy, why don't they just flat out say "We want a mixed economy," instead they keep saying "Socialism" over and over again.

Says the guy whose go-to argument for his fallible system is "Good Governance." Which you've never been able to defend to this day.

Perhaps direct SHAMING might not be the best approach to motivating every single person with a weight problem, so I've changed my mind a little bit on that one. However, you don't empower the overweight by telling them that beauty and health are social constructs. You don't empower the overweight by banning supermodel billboards in London. You don't empower the overweight by thin-shaming.

That's right, I'll never fuck you. I have standards and dating preferences.

Besides, I still stand by that statement to this day and I'll never apologize for it. Never apologize to SJWs, all it does is empower them.

 

If you remember, to that I said:

"What's your point? Some racists identify as left-wing. Exhibit A:"



Are you now gonna denounce your label as a Leftist, because there's a few blatant racist heroes in the left wing?

Also, I'm pretty sure we've been over this before as I've told you that the original alt-right was coined as a label for new-age right wing views in the alternative media that countered those of the common establishment right. The old alt-right is dead; Richard Spencer and his puppet masters killed it.

 

Looks like the Fyre Festival of policy proposals

 

It's his freedom of speech to question Sandy Hook. Just as it's Cenk Ugyur's freedom of speech to deny the Armenian genocide.

 

We'll see how Jones' "freedom of speech" plays out in court. He didn't just "question" Sandy Hook. He accused the bereaved parents of being crisis actors. How low can you go? And freedom of speech has never been an absolute. If you make false accusations against people, that's defamation, which has never legally been protected speech and shouldn't be. As Cenk Ugyur, denying the Armenian genocide, outrageously false as it is, isn't aimed at identifiable people he accused of being crisis actors, so his speech is protected.

 

Oh yes indeed the Nazis, Libertarians, and Lassiez-Faire economics are like peas in a pod. Because it's very well known that private property rights, freedom of speech, free markets, and the right to bear arms was totally in Hitler's platform.

It's not like Nazi was an abreviation of "Nationalsozialist." No, that never happened, that's right wing propaganda. Ain't that right Beavis?

 

Yes, but Ugyur's denial doesn't result in his followers harrassing and threatening the families of the victims of the Armenian genocide...

 

Che was a racist early on, but he changed by the time he made a name for himself in leftist circles. He became a crusader for racial integration of public and higher education in Cuba, and "law 270" integrating public accommodations. He worked side by side with Afro-Cubans and Africans in the revolutionary struggle, and was a vocal opponent of apartheid in South Africa. If he were operating today, he might be expected to make a public apology and step down from revolutionary leadership, but that was then and this is now. If your right-winger racists mend their ways and start acting for the advancement of African-Americans, I'd be willing to say "All is forgiven"--at least on that issue. There's a huge disproportion between isolated cases of racism on the left, and the pervasive racism of white supremacists of the far right and the Euro-chauvinists and Islamaphobes of the AltLite, of which several of your posts would seem to be examples.

There's another problem with bringing up Che that ties in with your overall strategy of conjuring up a monolithic "Left" and linking it to radical Socialism and Communism. Che was and is a hero to a fringe in this country. I see nothing admirable about him, and bringing him up in the context of contemporary U.S. politics and trying to link him to progressives is cheap propaganda.

 

Hitler's opportunist use of the term "socialism" in his rise to power has been explained to you often enough. This article by David Emry explains it again in terms your might possibly understand. Were the Nazis Socialists?