I think we might finally be getting to a place as a society where we understand the distinction between communist governments and socialist safety net programs, so I really don't want to undermine that progress, but when you really start to dig deep into socialist philosophy and history the distinction becomes a bit more muddled. This really shouldn't be shocking to anyone. Ideas change and evolve over time, and socialism has been around as a philosophy since the beginning of recorded history. Anyway, what's the real point of just about any socialist philosophy? Some level of economic egalitarianism, some level of democratic control over monetary distribution, and a minimum level of economic stability for individuals in a given country. This holds pretty much true for communist Russia as it does for Denmark or Sweden. The problem isn't that both examples share similarities, the problem is that we've allowed discourse to degenerate to a point where any similarities to communist governments whatsoever are automatic conversation enders. Can you imagine what things would be like if we applied that same logic to free market capitalism? If any time a politician wanted to deregulate or privatize we shouted them down because Pinochet did those things? If even speaking Friedman's name without following it up with an epithet was enough to disqualify your opinion because dictators carried out horrific acts in pursuit of his philosophy?
theone86's forum posts
The truth is that the media and the international community overestimates the opposition, while vastly underestimating Chavismo.
There is a reason why Maduro has not been removed. The opposition simply put, do not have the silent majority. Many may not like Maduro but they hate the opposition and that is a fact.
And in fact, the May Day marches of chavistas were massive today.
This, and I think they especially hate U.S.-backed leaders. Maduro is the devil they know, the U.S. is the devil they don't. And we really should realize that by now. After all the failed regimes the U.S. propped up in the region, the plundering of national resources, the disappearing and murder of thousands of citizens, is it any wonder they don't trust our government to select leaders for them? Pinochet created a prison camp for political opponents inside a soccer stadium and it was broadcast to the world, with the full support of U.S. politicians and economists (*cough* Friedman *cough*). People tend to remember stuff like that.
Blah, blah, blah, absolutely nothing of substance, some bullshit about civility (old Nazi trope, BTW), blah, blah. Thanks for proving my point. And the whole bitching about the deplorables comment would be a lot more convincing if you didn't support a politician who spends 99% of his time insulting other people and trying to trigger the libs. Don't like the deplorable comment? Then go find a safe space, snowflake.
I'm just speaking facts, your posting history speaks for itself. But then again, why should I care what some white guilt-filled SJW on GameSpot thinks of me? It's also funny when you try to take back snowflake (something I never called you) while calling me a Nazi because I don't agree with you politically and you complained repeatedly over the fact that half the country was too stupid in your opinion to elect Hillary Clinton. Don't you have a sky to scream at?
You can call me a deplorable and Nazi all you want it if makes you feel better. Since I'm black, you can add Uncle Tom, house n***** and sellout to the list as well, right after you virtue signal by writing my repatriations check for some things your great-great-great-great grandparents may have did to my great-great-great-great grandparents. Or do I need to register as a Democrat first?
You've never spoken a damn fact in your life. If you want to speak facts then why don't you just speak them instead of blathering on and on about how you speak them? Oh right, cause you're full of shit.
And I didn't call you a Nazi (more bullshit from you, what a surprise) I said that bitching about civility is an old Nazi trope, and I provided a link to solid proof of that fact. Who's spitting facts now? Not you.
Ugh, no, I sincerely hope not. I'm still banking on Warren pulling ahead.
LOL Warren :D
But good luck
April 25-28, 2019
Former Vice President Joe Biden 39%
Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders 15%
Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren 8%
Businessman Andrew Yang 1%
I know all you conjobs are creaming your pants at the thought of a president who's going to hand even more money over to corporate America, but wait until their politics are put under a spotlight. When they start throwing students, health care activists, housing activists, and basically everyone else who has a stake in this election under the bus things are gonna change. Right now Biden has name recognition going for him, that's it. Remind me, what were your boytoy Trump's numbers at this point in the 2016 election cycle?
And here I thought the Berniebro threads were a thing of the past after 2016.
Ugh, no, I sincerely hope not. I'm still banking on Warren pulling ahead.
I think she faces an uphill battle. She puts more thought into her proposals than anyone else on the field, but that's not what wins primaries (or elections).
Yeah, that's what I really hate about the election so far. It also seems like the media's already jumped on the whole electability bandwagon too, which just adds to the dearth of evidence that Hillary wasn't a uniquely unsuitable candidate. Here's the really messed up part, though, is that Warren is everything Hillary supposedly wasn't. She's firery, smart, progressive, in-touch with the regular people, hell Bernie even championed her back when she was trying to chair the CPB. She throws her hat in the race and all of the sudden it's, "oh, she doesn't have the right personality." It's damned if you do, damned if you don't.
The way I see it, one of two things is going to happen in 2020. Either Trump's appalling approval numbers are going to sink him against just about any candidate they put forward, or he's going to defy expectations again by falling back on demagogueing and name-calling. Either way, I don't think the candidate who runs against him matters. If his BS is going to work, it's going to work as well against Biden and Bernie as it will against Sanders or Harris. If he's too toxic to win, then anyone will be able to beat him. Might as well just put the best candidate forward and hope for the best. As far as I'm concerned, Harris, Warren, and Messam are the only qualified candidates in the running right now, and if they get pushed out over concerns about electability or relateability it'll be a damn shame.
Are we really advocating for physically abusing our children in light of a mountain of evidence showing how ineffective and damaging it can be to them?
Welcome to America circa 2019.
more like 1950, but whatever. I think most of the country realized the above ("Are we really advocating for physically abusing our children in light of a mountain of evidence showing how ineffective and damaging it can be to them?") but, as with most things, when that happens you always have contrarians who advocate not only for the opposite, but for the opposite extreme.
There are also holdouts of tradition, especially among immigrants and certain groups, specifically black and Hispanic parents.
I saw one of my friends spank their toddler the other day when I was hanging out. It was incredibly awkward, not going to lie, but I didn't say anything because that's how they decide to parent. I draw the line when any sort of "tool" is used, i.e. spatula, tree branch, broom, etc. that is just messed up because it can actually do damage to the child.
Again, I don't support either form of corporal punishment, but there is a big difference between spanking your kid til their bottom is a little red, versus beating them with an implement and causing bruises and breaking the the skin.
I can't keep dismissing stuff like this as belonging in the past. Yeah, it does, but it clearly isn't just in the past. I can't keep telling myself it's just people who got stuck in a time warp, they're choosing to do this even though there are mountains of evidence showing it's harmful.
I can't find the article, but I saw a study a while back that said the negative effects of physical discipline set in after only a couple of occurrences, and it doesn't really make much of a difference whether or not implements are used. I mean, from a purely humanitarian mindset yeah, I'd rather see them spank lightly than goddamned flail their children simply because it will cause less physical harm, but it causes just as much emotional harm.
And I don't really know what I'd do about it if I could implement any policies I wanted, I just wish we didn't have to deal with it. I don't know if starting an argument with your friend is a good idea or not, I just wish you would never be put in that position to begin with.