Jump to content

This forum struggles because left wing goose steppers are so stupid


Recommended Posts

19 hours ago, Rebound said:

If we truly want the American political system to work properly we need to embrace moderation. Not liberal, not conservative, but compromise middle of the road solutions, particularly when it comes to the budget but also in social issues.  

Nope. The problem with trying to become moderate is that the center doesn't stop moving left. Today's moderates are a lot more liberal left than moderates from 50 years ago. 

Leftism is a disease - it drags everything left, and it needs to be stamped out. 

Find a way to get democrats to classic liberalism and we'll be able to find common ground from there. 

Edited by Deluge
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Americana Antifa said:

That's the inevitable conclusion of capitalism. When we allow a small minority to have an overwhelming amount of power, they use that power to grant themselves more power.

Some capitalists will say that the real problem is "crony capitalism," but capitalism literally always becomes crony capitalism.

Nobody makes it on their own. We're all born into a set of circumstances, we all live in a society, we all get help. Capitalism is better than feudalism, but it's still a system that rigs the game based on birth. If you're born into wealth, you're going to have infinitely more help than someone born into poverty. And while people born into poverty do get some level of help, they also get hinderances that rich people don't get. The private prison industry, which is like peak capitalism, keeps people poor.

There's nothing wrong with having power and influence if you're not using it to f*ck other people over.

Capitalism works. Evil a$$holes don't work. 

There's nothing wrong with being born into a wealthy family. 

See, your problem is that you want government to control everything all of the time. For some weird, stupid reason, you think government is wise and judicious enough to decide who gets what and when. That will never fly in this country. 

No, the best way to go for Americans is to evolve as capitalists. Let your Marxist values evolve someplace else. ;)

Edited by Deluge
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, CdnFox said:

The difference is - it's almost impossible to get rich under capitalism without making others around you rich.

This is a pretty rose-coloured way of looking at it, and not really true at all.  That's why we have anti-combine/anti-trust laws and regulated markets.   

20 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Gates, jobs, bezos, all of them made many many many millionares as they grew in wealth and those millionares spent money helping provide good jobs etc.

Great examples of my point above.  What did Bill Gates give us other than an overpriced operating system and a defacto-monopoly on office software that other companies were doing better?  Bezos?  Who is he making rich? Certainly not the employees. 

My boner for capitalism never goes away, but it needs a gentle hand steering it or things get royally f'd up.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

This is a pretty rose-coloured way of looking at it, and not really true at all.  That's why we have anti-combine/anti-trust laws and regulated markets.   

It's a lot more true than not true.  I mean - if your complaint is that complex socio-economic issues can't always be exhaustively explained in one sentance in a web forum, ya got me :) But - by and large it is true and demonstrably so. Name a person who got rich without dragging a bunch of people with them under that model

9 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Great examples of my point above.  What did Bill Gates give us other than an overpriced operating system and a defacto-monopoly on office software that other companies were doing better?

An OS that changed the world, produced tens of thousands of jobs, made thousands into millionares, and drove massive amounts of wealth creation.

You can downplay anything if you want - "what did jesus do for us other than get some people liquored up a wedding and get himself nailed to a tree for saying we should be nice to people?"  But the reality is different.

Whether you liked dos or windows - there can be NO doubt that gate's rise to wealth rose a hell of a lot of other people as well.

9 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

  Bezos?  Who is he making rich? Certainly not the employees. 

THe lowest employees still have jobs they wouldn't have had - and that's still economic activity, But - he has made a LOT of people very wealthy and amazon is a major factor in a number of retirement funds Just as microsoft is.  :)

You know jeff doesn't own the whole thing himself right?

9 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

My boner for capitalism never goes away, but it needs a gentle hand steering it or things get royally f'd up.  

Sure. "Pure" capitalism eventually leads to a single corp monopolizing everything, It needs structure, Very few 'pure' things work out well  - pure democracy would be a disaster for example.

But - with that aside it is very difficult in a capitalist model to get rich without raising the quality of life for a  lot of other people.

In communism or socialism you can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arguing about the various "isms" is just about the most fruitless venture one can do. They are purely subjective and what qualifies as "__-ism" is purely subjective. Two moving targets is not a recipe for exact, concise debate. 

That being said, I have been quite masochistic in the past and read Das Kapital and Mein Kempf from cover to cover. The former has been disproven by economists. The latter is so poorly written as to be indecipherable. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

If you don't care about the topic then just ignore it... Don't cry about how I use facts and stats to bully leftards. 

you have a well documented track record of making assumptions and now lets add hyperbole to your repertoire. "Crying" when it is you who seeks me out and seeks heated debate.. and when I inform you (on multiple occasions) that i do not care, that means I am crying. That's some great imagination. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

But - by and large it is true and demonstrably so. Name a person who got rich without dragging a bunch of people with them under that model

What does "a bunch" even mean?  I can say a bunch of people got rich from most centrally-controlled state projects in Soviet Russia as well.  Whether it was value-adding to the economy at large is another matter. 

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

An OS that changed the world, produced tens of thousands of jobs, made thousands into millionares, and drove massive amounts of wealth creation.

and was so predatory and monopolistic that the Justice Department had to slap them down in the late 90's and early 2000's, and thank God they did. 

Capitalism is the best system in the world because of competition.  In any market where that's no longer in play, it loses its primary advantage.  Microsoft did, of course, contribute to the computer/information age, but how much it helped drive us forward vs how much it held us back suffocating competitors (who could have potentially done things cheaper/better/faster) is something we can never really know.  Every time these sorts of monopolies are broken up and markets are opened, however, things improve.  

 

 

Edited by Moonbox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

you have a well documented track record of making assumptions and now lets add hyperbole to your repertoire.

I have a well-documented track record of posting stats and facts which leftists find inconvenient, that's it, so who's making assumptions here, sport?

Instead of just running your mouth, why don't you say what assumptions were made that you're offended by? 

Quote

"Crying" when it is you who seeks me out and seeks heated debate.. and when I inform you (on multiple occasions) that i do not care, that means I am crying. That's some great imagination. 

Buddy, you completely ignore all the stats and facts here, chime in with snotty insults, and then pretend to not care. That's weird.

Why throw down snotty insults if you don't care? In my experience people don't throw tantrums about things that they don't care about...

Also, people with analytical minds - the kind of people who track stats - would normally choose to engage in discussions about facts and stats and avoid discussions about their feelings. 

 

Here's an assumption for you: I'm pretty sure that there are no leftists/vaxtards that will ever address the issue of increasing covid deaths - it's suddenly unpopular, even though they're worse than ever......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

I have a well-documented track record of posting stats and facts which leftists find inconvenient, that's it, so who's making assumptions here, sport?

Instead of just running your mouth, why don't you say what assumptions were made that you're offended by? 

Buddy, you completely ignore all the stats and facts here, chime in with snotty insults, and then pretend to not care. That's weird.

Why throw down snotty insults if you don't care? In my experience people don't throw tantrums about things that they don't care about...

Also, people with analytical minds - the kind of people who track stats - would normally choose to engage in discussions about facts and stats and avoid discussions about their feelings. 

 

Here's an assumption for you: I'm pretty sure that there are no leftists/vaxtards that will ever address the issue of increasing covid deaths - it's suddenly unpopular, even though they're worse than ever......

Because you respond to me.. cause and effect. Is that simple enough? 

By the way. you are simply hilarious. Yes, I am a numbers/stats guy. However, in your world the only numbers/stats are those that deal with covid deaths. If that does not show bias.. not sure what does.

also, more exaggeration and hyperbole on your part. You are consistent if nothing else. 

Edited by impartialobserver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Deluge said:

Nope. The problem with trying to become moderate is that the center doesn't stop moving left. Today's moderates are a lot more liberal left than moderates from 50 years ago. 

Leftism is a disease - it drags everything left, and it needs to be stamped out. 

Find a way to get democrats to classic liberalism and we'll be able to find common ground from there. 

Besides gay rights, on what policies have liberals moved farther left in the last 30 years? 

Edited by Rebound
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

However, in your world the only numbers/stats are those that deal with covid deaths. If that does not show bias.. not sure what does.

Why did we shut down the country? Covid deaths.

What did the news talk about 24/7 from Jan 2020 'til Dec 2021? Covid deaths.

Why did we force young people, who didn't need the vax at all, to vax? To prevent covid deaths.

WCM: "Hey, I have an idea, let's see if the vax had an effect on the number of covid deaths."

Leftists "Nope. We should be ignoring covid deaths now."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, WestCanMan said:

Why did we shut down the country? Covid deaths.

What did the news talk about 24/7 from Jan 2020 'til Dec 2021? Covid deaths.

Why did we force young people, who didn't need the vax at all, to vax? To prevent covid deaths.

WCM: "Hey, I have an idea, let's see if the vax had an effect on the number of covid deaths."

Leftists "Nope. We should be ignoring covid deaths now."

And the only numbers/stats in the collective universe are Covid Deaths?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Rebound said:

Besides gay rights, on what policies have liberals moved farther left in the last 30 years? 

1. Gay rights. 

2. Trans rights. 

3. Ethnic Representation (Juneteenth, Advertising, Film, Television....)

4. Title IX - it's earlier than 30 years but still applies. 

5. Abortion rights (50 years ago, but still going strong in blue states). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Deluge said:

Nope. The problem with trying to become moderate is that the center doesn't stop moving left. Today's moderates are a lot more liberal left than moderates from 50 years ago. 

Leftism is a disease - it drags everything left, and it needs to be stamped out. 

Find a way to get democrats to classic liberalism and we'll be able to find common ground from there. 

Leftists are trying redefine everything to make it seem like they aren't crazy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Deluge said:

1. Gay rights. 

2. Trans rights. 

3. Ethnic Representation (Juneteenth, Advertising, Film, Television....)

4. Title IX - it's earlier than 30 years but still applies. 

5. Abortion rights (50 years ago, but still going strong in blue states). 

You are 100% wrong across the board. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

And the only numbers/stats in the collective universe are Covid Deaths?

No, certainly not, but they were obviously the main concern. Not many things are more important than human deaths, right? 

The hospitals being overwhelmed was the next-biggest concern from 2020/21, but seeing as deaths were up by a lot in 2022, and infections were theoretically up by several times as much (in order to account for the extra deaths and still make the vax seem like a success), so the intermediate steps between infections and deaths (hospitalization and ICU visits) would have to be up as well. It's really hard to imagine a scenario where there were 7x as many infections, resulting in 30% more deaths, but hospitalizations and ICU visits were down....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

The hospitals being overwhelmed was the next-biggest concern from 2020/21, but seeing as deaths were up by a lot in 2022, and infections were theoretically up by several times as much (in order to account for the extra deaths and still make the vax seem like a success), so the intermediate steps between infections and deaths (hospitalization and ICU visits) would have to be up as well. It's really hard to imagine a scenario where there were 7x as many infections, resulting in 30% more deaths, but hospitalizations and ICU visits were down....

Why include this second paragraph when you know that I will not read a single character of it?

In the meantime, I am writing an R script that brings employment data (at the industry level) with that individual educational outcomes. Not a single mention of COVID.. no way

Edited by impartialobserver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Rebound said:

Besides gay rights, on what policies have liberals moved farther left in the last 30 years? 

They've increased regulations against free speech

-they've taken away people's right to manage what gets put into their own bodies

-they're stripped parental rights away almost completely (a school used to need permission to apply Polysporin or give an Aspirin, now they give prescriptions for genitalia mutilation)

-they've legalized discrimination (sort of... You can't call someone a "ch--k" but you can say "Asians need to meet higher academic standards to get into this university), etc. 

Leftists have been quite busy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

Why include this second paragraph when you know that I will not read a single character of it?

Because my reply isn't only for your eyes only. Other people can see it too, and I don't want people to think I don't have answers for your dumb questions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, WestCanMan said:

Because my reply isn't only for your eyes only. Other people can see it too, and I don't want people to think I don't have answers for your dumb questions. 

Well, maybe.. just maybe, you should be a bit more rational and not just zealousness and passion. Assuming (your main skill, I know) that all numbers/stats center around covid deaths is a sign that you simply blast away with thinking first. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Rebound said:

You are 100% wrong across the board. 

That's impossible. You are 100% full of shit, so there is no way in hell that I am 100% wrong across the board.

The truth is, I am 100% RIGHT across the board. 

Edited by Deluge
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Moonbox said:

What does "a bunch" even mean?  I can say a bunch of people got rich from most centrally-controlled state projects in Soviet Russia as well.  Whether it was value-adding to the economy at large is another matter.

Well not really.

IF this REALLY is too complex to understand i'll dumb it down for you, but if you're just being deliberately obtuse then not interested.   People in strong capitalist markets create a lot of weath around them when they create wealth for themselves, that is not how it works under socialism.

2 hours ago, Moonbox said:

and was so predatory and monopolistic that the Justice Department had to slap them down in the late 90's and early 2000's, and thank God they did. 

Cool story - utterly irrelevant.

2 hours ago, Moonbox said:

Capitalism is the best system in the world because of competition.  In any market where that's no longer in play, it loses its primary advantage.  Microsoft did, of course, contribute to the computer/information age, but how much it helped drive us forward vs how much it held us back suffocating competitors (who could have potentially done things cheaper/better/faster) is something we can never really know.  Every time these sorts of monopolies are broken up and markets are opened, however, things improve.  

Sure.  We agree that a completely unregulated market is generally bad - and in fact any 'pure' model tends to be bad. Pure communism isn't even possible, pure democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner, and pure capitalism is the end of capitalism - it devolves to a single company that owns everything just like a poker game if you play it long enough.

Markets have to have enough regulation, either self regulated or gov't, to be able to ensure that the market remains free and available to all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,714
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    wopsas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Venandi went up a rank
      Explorer
    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...