Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[Marginalize On!] The Very Separate World of Conservative Republicans

1234568

Posts

  • psychotixpsychotix __BANNED USERS
    edited October 2009
    Ticaldfjam wrote: »
    Dyscord wrote: »
    It's less about these people being racist than it is about them seeing the decline of the social priviledge they've always enjoyed. They don't hate brown people necessarily, but they really enjoyed taking advantage of a social system that gave them various advantages over brown people. Never having considered solidarity with minorities in a classist sense, they're now very threatened by the idea that white priviledge is being brought to an end by demographics.

    Having a black president is just the most recent, most obvious evidence of this, so it isn't that hard to see why people react this way to it.

    Dyscord, you deserve a beer for this one. Awesome post!

    I don't agree with it fully. While there is some of that, I view things differently.

    I think it's more about religion and social values, keep in mind more of these people would prefer their child marying a minority (though there is a break down there as well) then an athiest. This is a break down of changing the social values, more so then the social structure, of the country. Hence why the jeudeo christian bomb is lobbed so often. There is also a fundamental belief among these people that since these social views come from god, they inherently are better and things fail without them.

    It's the same sort of crap you hear with regardess to the free market, and why these idiots (not counthing the "fuck you I'm rich" crowd which isn't retarded, just greedy) that the free market works. In their mind the problem with the free market is greedy non christians up in NYC and DC that screw it up, if things were run by christians they'd be honest and we would have these problems.

    You can see the same tone in the states rights idiocy that's going around.

  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    I care about putting the brakes on illegal immigration. And I agree this is a spiffy costume for Lou Dobbs' fans.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33402451/ns/us_news-race_and_ethnicity/

    easybossfight_zps4752c132.gif
  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Harrisonburg, VARegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Oh my fucking Christ why do people misuse "freedom of speech"

    If I tell you to shut the fuck up, acting as a private individual, that doesn't count. At all.

  • GoslingGosling Looking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, Probably Watertown, WIRegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    It is very, very real.

    And a couple Farkers have expressed interest in siccing 4chan on it. Which, really, the RNC is bad, but nobody deserves 4chan.

    Seriously, though. Yes, you will get money out of the base off of a naked push-poll like this.

    Problem is that you're also sending it to the moderates. Sure, maybe some of them give you money too. But there are others- I'm seeing them on the Fark thread- who are looking at this and concluding- correctly- that the GOP has already decided which way they want to go, and it's not their way. And, in all likelihood, that revelation will spur more 'the party left me' defections we've seen so many of lately.

    So, yes, they'll get more money, but they're also going to lose votes they can't afford to lose. And in the end, it's votes that count.

    I have a blog. Read it. Blog-reading makes you pretty and popular.
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    It appears to be a revision of one from March.

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-gop/2207917/posts
    http://www.gopusa.com/archives/friends/2009_04_07_rnc.html
    1) Please take a moment right now to fill out online the State of the Republican Party Survey for the RNC. I want you to be honest and candid in your answers -- there's no need to sugar-coat your responses after our Party's performances in the last two elections.

    Sincerely,
    Michael Steele
    Chairman, Republican National Committee

  • DelzhandDelzhand motivated battle programmerRegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    emnmnme wrote: »
    I care about putting the brakes on illegal immigration. And I agree this is a spiffy costume for Lou Dobbs' fans.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33402451/ns/us_news-race_and_ethnicity/

    I don't get it. It has a green card, right? Am I supposed to infer that it is fraudulent, or that the alien is legal and pretending to be illegal?

    jk0Btsj.png
  • Bionic MonkeyBionic Monkey Registered User, ClubPA
    edited October 2009
    Delzhand wrote: »
    emnmnme wrote: »
    I care about putting the brakes on illegal immigration. And I agree this is a spiffy costume for Lou Dobbs' fans.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33402451/ns/us_news-race_and_ethnicity/

    I don't get it. It has a green card, right? Am I supposed to infer that it is fraudulent, or that the alien is legal and pretending to be illegal?

    Yeah, logically the costume doesn't make any sense.

    But then, it also doesn't strike me as all that offensive.

    sig_megas_armed.jpg
  • Lord Of The PantsLord Of The Pants Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Rent wrote: »
    KalTorak wrote: »
    Rent wrote: »
    Also, I'm a nice guy I won't kill you. I swear. Honest. PeregrineFalcon can vouch for me

    Because you'll kill him if he doesn't, right?

    KalTorak can also vouch for me. I'm a good guy.

    <.<


    <.<

    He said he'd kill me if I didn't threaten to kill him, your honor.

    :mrgreen:

    steam_sig.png
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Heartlash wrote: »
    Dyscord wrote: »
    haha, riiiiight

    Ever hear of the modern day "culture crisis" in Europe?

    Also, as much controversy as it's caused, we still do have affirmative action in this country. We also still openly encourage integration and have an overreaching trend of tolerance messages in our mainstream media culture (just watch commercials).

    I was pretty sure I was going to get responded to with this, and frankly it just isn't comparable at all.

    I mean it was only within the last few years that our country began to acknowledge, tenuously, that perhaps statehouses should not openly fly the confederate flag. We have affirmative action sure, but it's regularly contested as something inappropriate. It's also pretty arguable that we "encourage" integration. We had a brief flirtation with doing so in the 60s and to a lesser extent the 70s, but that movement has more or less stopped and may be going in reverse. Even given pretty massive efforts to integrate housing during that time, you are only today five or six percent more likely to live near someone not of your race than you were forty years ago.

    edit: also, and if you think our commercials encourage integration, find me one commercial that prominently displays an interracial couple or family (particularly a black/white one.) I can think of exactly one, and it's a limited, targeted run by one company.

    gkcmatch_zps97480250.jpg
    stand up! It was the smallest on the list but
    pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    psychotix wrote: »
    Ticaldfjam wrote: »
    Dyscord wrote: »
    It's less about these people being racist than it is about them seeing the decline of the social priviledge they've always enjoyed. They don't hate brown people necessarily, but they really enjoyed taking advantage of a social system that gave them various advantages over brown people. Never having considered solidarity with minorities in a classist sense, they're now very threatened by the idea that white priviledge is being brought to an end by demographics.

    Having a black president is just the most recent, most obvious evidence of this, so it isn't that hard to see why people react this way to it.

    Dyscord, you deserve a beer for this one. Awesome post!

    I don't agree with it fully. While there is some of that, I view things differently.

    I think it's more about religion and social values, keep in mind more of these people would prefer their child marying a minority (though there is a break down there as well) then an athiest. This is a break down of changing the social values, more so then the social structure, of the country. Hence why the jeudeo christian bomb is lobbed so often. There is also a fundamental belief among these people that since these social views come from god, they inherently are better and things fail without them.

    I don't think you're really contradicting me here.

    I actually do think that even the conservative right has made some measure of racial progress, in that they at least seem to be willing to accept minorities that conform to all of their other norms into their culture.

    What they fail to accept is that their culture is to large extent based on social (essentially racial) oppression. You hear conservatives talk all the time about "defending their culture" and so on, without ever hearing any acknowledgment of the latent racism inherent in it that many of them continue to benefit from.

    gkcmatch_zps97480250.jpg
    stand up! It was the smallest on the list but
    pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
  • StarcrossStarcross Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    psychotix wrote: »
    Ticaldfjam wrote: »
    Dyscord wrote: »
    It's less about these people being racist than it is about them seeing the decline of the social priviledge they've always enjoyed. They don't hate brown people necessarily, but they really enjoyed taking advantage of a social system that gave them various advantages over brown people. Never having considered solidarity with minorities in a classist sense, they're now very threatened by the idea that white priviledge is being brought to an end by demographics.

    Having a black president is just the most recent, most obvious evidence of this, so it isn't that hard to see why people react this way to it.

    Dyscord, you deserve a beer for this one. Awesome post!

    I don't agree with it fully. While there is some of that, I view things differently.

    I think it's more about religion and social values, keep in mind more of these people would prefer their child marying a minority (though there is a break down there as well) then an athiest. This is a break down of changing the social values, more so then the social structure, of the country. Hence why the jeudeo christian bomb is lobbed so often. There is also a fundamental belief among these people that since these social views come from god, they inherently are better and things fail without them.

    It's the same sort of crap you hear with regardess to the free market, and why these idiots (not counthing the "fuck you I'm rich" crowd which isn't retarded, just greedy) that the free market works. In their mind the problem with the free market is greedy non christians up in NYC and DC that screw it up, if things were run by christians they'd be honest and we would have these problems.

    You can see the same tone in the states rights idiocy that's going around.

    I know this is kind of off-topic but God do I hate the phrase "Judeo-Christian". Because let's be honest, what it means is "Christian".

  • The Crowing OneThe Crowing One Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Starcross wrote: »
    I know this is kind of off-topic but God do I hate the phrase "Judeo-Christian". Because let's be honest, what it means is "Christian".

    What it means is "discriminating against those who are different". When it's not in a discriminatory context they usually call it "human rights", even when coming from a religious setting.

    3rddocbottom.jpg
  • KastanjKastanj __BANNED USERS
    edited October 2009
    Starcross wrote: »
    I know this is kind of off-topic but God do I hate the phrase "Judeo-Christian". Because let's be honest, what it means is "Christian".

    What it means is "discriminating against those who are different". When it's not in a discriminatory context they usually call it "human rights", even when coming from a religious setting.

    What it means is "AH-MUSLIMSMUSLIMSMUSLIMSMUSLIMSMUSLIMSMUSLIMS-MUSHROOM-MUSHROOM!"

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • AtomikaAtomika Hypercritical Queen Bitch of Cinema Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Starcross wrote: »
    I know this is kind of off-topic but God do I hate the phrase "Judeo-Christian". Because let's be honest, what it means is "Christian".

    What it means is "discriminating against those who are different". When it's not in a discriminatory context they usually call it "human rights", even when coming from a religious setting.

    What it actually means is "Biblically-supported position that coincides with my predisposed belief on Topic X, though dig no further for the inevitable passage of the Bible that contradicts everything."

    It also means "shitty practices/social beliefs dating back to pre-colonial times that people got away with because the Bible is capable of supporting literally any position."

    By that logic, murdering rape victims is a "Judeo-Christian value."

  • OctoparrotOctoparrot Registered User
    edited October 2009
    By that logic, murdering rape victims is a "Judeo-Christian value."

    I have to admit I really respect a man with as much faith, piety, and dedication as Glenn Beck.

    the GOP shouldn't give a rats ass about them since they won't vote for them. If someone won't vote for you they might as well not exist.
  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Harrisonburg, VARegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Kastanj wrote: »
    Starcross wrote: »
    I know this is kind of off-topic but God do I hate the phrase "Judeo-Christian". Because let's be honest, what it means is "Christian".

    What it means is "discriminating against those who are different". When it's not in a discriminatory context they usually call it "human rights", even when coming from a religious setting.

    What it means is "AH-MUSLIMSMUSLIMSMUSLIMSMUSLIMSMUSLIMSMUSLIMS-TERRIST-TERRIST!"

    Fixed that for you. But good job naetheless.

  • psychotixpsychotix __BANNED USERS
    edited October 2009
    It is very, very real.

    And a couple Farkers have expressed interest in siccing 4chan on it. Which, really, the RNC is bad, but nobody deserves 4chan.

    It would be interesting to see.
    What they fail to accept is that their culture is to large extent based on social (essentially racial) oppression. You hear conservatives talk all the time about "defending their culture" and so on, without ever hearing any acknowledgment of the latent racism inherent in it that many of them continue to benefit from.

    I really view this as more of an us vs those urban assholes mentality then anything else.

  • ElJeffeElJeffe Super Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited October 2009
    Cognisseur wrote: »
    So I'm not sure if you guys got this yet, but the RNC released their Census questionnaire to get a good idea of what their supporters believe in, found here.

    Oh man, that's high comedy.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Super Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited October 2009
    Dyscord wrote: »
    It's less about these people being racist than it is about them seeing the decline of the social priviledge they've always enjoyed. They don't hate brown people necessarily, but they really enjoyed taking advantage of a social system that gave them various advantages over brown people. Never having considered solidarity with minorities in a classist sense, they're now very threatened by the idea that white priviledge is being brought to an end by demographics.

    Having a black president is just the most recent, most obvious evidence of this, so it isn't that hard to see why people react this way to it.

    Agreed. But at the same time, I would guess that a lot of the actual racists see "socialist" as a more legitimate means of criticizing the president than "fuckin' darkie." I wouldn't say that "socialist" is a code-word, but I would say it's probably used by a fair number of racists.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • FencingsaxFencingsax Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Octoparrot wrote: »
    By that logic, murdering rape victims is a "Judeo-Christian value."

    I have to admit I really respect a man with as much faith, piety, and dedication as Glenn Beck.

    Okay, I laughed at that.

    It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it
  • Irond WillIrond Will Dragonmaster Cambridge. MASuper Moderator, Moderator mod
    edited October 2009
    Star wars stuff split off to its own thread.

    Wqdwp8l.png
  • templewulftemplewulf Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Dyscord wrote: »
    It's less about these people being racist than it is about them seeing the decline of the social priviledge they've always enjoyed. They don't hate brown people necessarily, but they really enjoyed taking advantage of a social system that gave them various advantages over brown people. Never having considered solidarity with minorities in a classist sense, they're now very threatened by the idea that white priviledge is being brought to an end by demographics.

    Having a black president is just the most recent, most obvious evidence of this, so it isn't that hard to see why people react this way to it.

    Agreed. But at the same time, I would guess that a lot of the actual racists see "socialist" as a more legitimate means of criticizing the president than "fuckin' darkie." I wouldn't say that "socialist" is a code-word, but I would say it's probably used by a fair number of racists.

    Sweet Mechanical Christ, you guys. That was a lazy joke to link my assessment of unitedshoes back to the topic at hand. You were not supposed to take it half as seriously as you did.

    Was fun reading, though. :lol:

    Friend me: Twitter | Google+
    Invite me: XBox Live | PS3 | Steam
    Link to me: Number Sorter | Achievement Generator
  • DoctorArchDoctorArch Curmudgeon Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    templewulf wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Dyscord wrote: »
    It's less about these people being racist than it is about them seeing the decline of the social priviledge they've always enjoyed. They don't hate brown people necessarily, but they really enjoyed taking advantage of a social system that gave them various advantages over brown people. Never having considered solidarity with minorities in a classist sense, they're now very threatened by the idea that white priviledge is being brought to an end by demographics.

    Having a black president is just the most recent, most obvious evidence of this, so it isn't that hard to see why people react this way to it.

    Agreed. But at the same time, I would guess that a lot of the actual racists see "socialist" as a more legitimate means of criticizing the president than "fuckin' darkie." I wouldn't say that "socialist" is a code-word, but I would say it's probably used by a fair number of racists.

    Sweet Mechanical Christ, you guys. That was a lazy joke to link my assessment of unitedshoes back to the topic at hand. You were not supposed to take it half as seriously as you did.

    Was fun reading, though. :lol:

    Regardless of what people mean when they use "socialist" as a slur, all that matters is what the independents are hearing when they hear people use the word "socialist."

    steam_sig.png
  • templewulftemplewulf Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Archgarth wrote: »
    Regardless of what people mean when they use "socialist" as a slur, all that matters is what the independents are hearing when they hear people use the word "socialist."

    I don't actually think it's racist*, but it's clearly a mindless slur on The Other. Screaming it at the top of your lungs only advertises that you don't know what it means. For them, it seems to be just a term of denigration, in much the same way Limbaugh says "liberals" as a synonym for "Godless Sodomites".

    *
    Spoiler:

    Friend me: Twitter | Google+
    Invite me: XBox Live | PS3 | Steam
    Link to me: Number Sorter | Achievement Generator
  • DoctorArchDoctorArch Curmudgeon Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    templewulf wrote: »
    Archgarth wrote: »
    Regardless of what people mean when they use "socialist" as a slur, all that matters is what the independents are hearing when they hear people use the word "socialist."

    I don't actually think it's racist*, but it's clearly a mindless slur on The Other. Screaming it at the top of your lungs only advertises that you don't know what it means. For them, it seems to be just a term of denigration, in much the same way Limbaugh says "liberals" as a synonym for "Godless Sodomites".

    *
    Spoiler:

    It makes me yearn for a poll of independents, one in which they are subjected to right-wing radio and talking points and report what they gather from such messaging.

    steam_sig.png
  • HachfaceHachface Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
  • TeletheusTeletheus Registered User
    edited October 2009
    I don't see "socialist" being used as code for "black," although I think it's true that there are probably racists who see that as a "safer" way to criticize the president than using racially-charged terms. However, I also see plenty of people who want to frame the argument as if socialist were a code word; it's a way to delegitimize people's concerns without actually addressing the idea itself.

    Socialism is based on the idea that capitalism is inherently unfair and exploitative. It's about the idea that goods and services should be available to everyone and that the government should be responsible for making sure that happens.

    Is a public option closer to socialism than the present system? Yes. Is it exactly socialism? No.

    Would government-run health care be closer to socialism than a public option? Yes, with the caveat that the degree to which it was socialist would depend entirely on the details of its implementation. It wouldn't make us a "socialist country" overall, in and of itself, but it would make health care a socialist industry. That's just the definition of the word "socialist."

    Believe it or not, there are a lot of people in this country who don't like the idea of socialism simply because they believe it's inherently flawed (just like there are people who think the idea of capitalism is inherently flawed). That doesn't mean they're making it a code word.

    The statement "Obama is a socialist" is certainly an oversimplification, although I'm not sure it's any less accurate than saying "Bush was a warmonger." It's always easier to dehumanize The Other than to actually consider their ideas. I mean, look at this thread. Or the Debate and Discourse forum as a whole, for that matter. There's a lot more in the way of personal attacks and marginalization of ideas than there is in the way reasoned, polite discourse of those ideas.

    It would be more accurate to say that "Obama has previously indicated support for a socialist-style health care system and is currently advocating a health care system that is far more socialist than the present system," but it's a lot harder to fit that on a protest sign.

    PSN/XBL/Steam/Twitter: Teletheus
  • MelksterMelkster Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    templewulf wrote: »
    Archgarth wrote: »
    Regardless of what people mean when they use "socialist" as a slur, all that matters is what the independents are hearing when they hear people use the word "socialist."

    I don't actually think it's racist*, but it's clearly a mindless slur on The Other. Screaming it at the top of your lungs only advertises that you don't know what it means. For them, it seems to be just a term of denigration, in much the same way Limbaugh says "liberals" as a synonym for "Godless Sodomites".

    *
    Spoiler:

    Not there's anything wrong with godless sodomites. I happen to be one!

  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Teletheus wrote: »
    I don't see "socialist" being used as code for "black," although I think it's true that there are probably racists who see that as a "safer" way to criticize the president than using racially-charged terms. However, I also see plenty of people who want to frame the argument as if socialist were a code word; it's a way to delegitimize people's concerns without actually addressing the idea itself.

    Socialism is based on the idea that capitalism is inherently unfair and exploitative. It's about the idea that goods and services should be available to everyone and that the government should be responsible for making sure that happens.

    Is a public option closer to socialism than the present system? Yes. Is it exactly socialism? No.

    Would government-run health care be closer to socialism than a public option? Yes, with the caveat that the degree to which it was socialist would depend entirely on the details of its implementation. It wouldn't make us a "socialist country" overall, in and of itself, but it would make health care a socialist industry. That's just the definition of the word "socialist."

    Believe it or not, there are a lot of people in this country who don't like the idea of socialism simply because they believe it's inherently flawed (just like there are people who think the idea of capitalism is inherently flawed). That doesn't mean they're making it a code word.

    The statement "Obama is a socialist" is certainly an oversimplification, although I'm not sure it's any less accurate than saying "Bush was a warmonger." It's always easier to dehumanize The Other than to actually consider their ideas. I mean, look at this thread. Or the Debate and Discourse forum as a whole, for that matter. There's a lot more in the way of personal attacks and marginalization of ideas than there is in the way reasoned, polite discourse of those ideas.

    It would be more accurate to say that "Obama has previously indicated support for a socialist-style health care system and is currently advocating a health care system that is far more socialist than the present system," but it's a lot harder to fit that on a protest sign.

    Well, it would be accurate, if it were in any way realistic. In fact the sign would have to say...

    "Obama has previously indicated support for a health care system which prevents monopolistic exploitation of consumers in violation of free market principles, he is currently advocating a health care system which is very very slightly towards the center ground of politics and is in no way socialism."

    Just because 2 is a bigger number than 1, doesn't make it 10. There's a whole spectrum of political viewpoints other than just socialism and capitalism.

    Your puny weapons are useless against me
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Super Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited October 2009
    Teletheus wrote: »
    Socialism is based on the idea that capitalism is inherently unfair and exploitative. It's about the idea that goods and services should be available to everyone and that the government should be responsible for making sure that happens.

    No. "Socialism" and "Capitalism" are not binary states. You are not either a capitalist society or a socialist society. Every society in the history of the world has been some mix of the two, including ours at every point during its existence.

    "Socialism" is based on the premise that pure capitalism is imperfect, that it allows bad things to happen that shouldn't be allowed to happen. Doesn't necessarily have much to do with being "unfair" or "exploitative" so much as just ineffective. About the closest we've ever come to pure capitalism was immediately pre-Depression, and it sucked. Hard. Because pure capitalism is imperfect, because there are things that a free market fundamentally cannot supply with any degree of success, the government can and should step in to fill in the gaps.

    USPS? That's socialism. Freeway system? Socialism. Unemployment insurance? Medicare? Military? Police? Fire department? All socialist. They are all the government taking in tax dollars and providing collective services in a way that the free market cannot do effectively. Something like universal health care is not a whole new critter that turns us into a socialist utopia, it's just another head on the same damned hydra.

    We are already a socialist nation. We always have been. People who bitch about socialism aren't really bitching about "socialism" in toto, or if they are fucking stupid. What they're bitching about is socialism outside of the narrow range of things they think socialism is good for. They just don't want to admit they like a little bit of socialism smeared on their capitalist cracker, because that's a naughty word.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • CommunistCowCommunistCow Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    I think the word he might have been looking for was "Marxist" instead of "socialist".

    No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    This doesn't quite belong here but the people who would know about it post in this thread. Months back, someone posted a link to a .pdf article by a fundamental Christian group opposed to gay marriage. The article had the top ten reasons people would support gay marriage and instructions on how to refute them. Anyone have that link?

    easybossfight_zps4752c132.gif
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Super Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited October 2009
    I think the word he might have been looking for was "Marxist" instead of "socialist".

    I'm not sure that would be much better, insomuch as our system - and everything that's ever been seriously proposed by Congress or by any sitting president - is so far from Marxism it isn't even funny.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • TheMarshalTheMarshal Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    emnmnme wrote: »
    This doesn't quite belong here but the people who would know about it post in this thread. Months back, someone posted a link to a .pdf article by a fundamental Christian group opposed to gay marriage. The article had the top ten reasons people would support gay marriage and instructions on how to refute them. Anyone have that link?

    Hm.. sounds like something I saw at the (Baptist) church that my family back east attends. It listed the majority of the world religions, what they believed in, why they were wrong, and how to convert them.

  • AdrienAdrien Registered User
    edited October 2009
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    I think the word he might have been looking for was "Marxist" instead of "socialist".

    I'm not sure that would be much better, insomuch as our system - and everything that's ever been seriously proposed by Congress or by any sitting president - is so far from Marxism it isn't even funny.

    Eh?
    Wiki wrote:
    10 Conditions For Transition To Communism
    Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
    A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
    Abolition of all right of inheritance.
    Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
    Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
    Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
    Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
    Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
    Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of the population over the country.
    Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.[7]
    According to the Communist Manifesto, all these were prior conditions for a transition from capitalism to communism, but Marx and Engels later expressed a desire to modernize this passage.[8]

    I don't want to be that guy, but I don't think "so far it's funny" applies here.

    tmkm.jpg
  • TofystedethTofystedeth veni, veneri, vamoosi Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    There's what, maybe 4 things that apply to the US in that list? and most of them are things you'd be a fool for decrying. Like, abolition of child labor, and soil improvement.

    steam_sig.png
  • TeletheusTeletheus Registered User
    edited October 2009
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Teletheus wrote: »
    Socialism is based on the idea that capitalism is inherently unfair and exploitative. It's about the idea that goods and services should be available to everyone and that the government should be responsible for making sure that happens.

    No. "Socialism" and "Capitalism" are not binary states. You are not either a capitalist society or a socialist society. Every society in the history of the world has been some mix of the two, including ours at every point during its existence.

    Please don't put words in my mouth. I'm not saying that they are binary states, nor am I saying that societies must necessarily choose some absolute between the two. I think you may be reading things into my post that you expect to be there; they're not.

    I do hope you can agree with the concept that Capitalism, with a capital C and in its pure form, is diametrically opposed to Socialism (similarly, with a capital S and in its pure form). I certainly can agree with the idea that America does not and has never followed either concept devoutly without influence from the other.
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    "Socialism" is based on the premise that pure capitalism is imperfect, that it allows bad things to happen that shouldn't be allowed to happen. Doesn't necessarily have much to do with being "unfair" or "exploitative" so much as just ineffective. About the closest we've ever come to pure capitalism was immediately pre-Depression, and it sucked. Hard. Because pure capitalism is imperfect, because there are things that a free market fundamentally cannot supply with any degree of success, the government can and should step in to fill in the gaps.

    I don't see how any of that makes me "wrong." That's essentially what I said. Those things that you characterize as "bad things" that "shouldn't be allowed to happen" are typically considered things that shouldn't be allowed to happen because they're unfair or exploitative.

    The only difference is that you've gone from saying what socialism is (which is what I did) to advocating for it. I'm not trying to advocate for or against it right now. I'm just trying to make sure we can all agree on what it actually is.
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    USPS? That's socialism. Freeway system? Socialism. Unemployment insurance? Medicare? Military? Police? Fire department? All socialist. They are all the government taking in tax dollars and providing collective services in a way that the free market cannot do effectively. Something like universal health care is not a whole new critter that turns us into a socialist utopia, it's just another head on the same damned hydra.

    Still not sure why you think I disagree with any of that. Or why you think I don't understand it. As I said before, "Would government-run health care be closer to socialism than a public option? Yes, with the caveat that the degree to which it was socialist would depend entirely on the details of its implementation. It wouldn't make us a 'socialist country' overall, in and of itself, but it would make health care a socialist industry. That's just the definition of the word 'socialist.'" I don't see how that's any different, substantially, than saying "universal health care is not a whole new critter that turns us into a socialist utopia, it's just another head on the same damned hydra."
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    We are already a socialist nation. We always have been. People who bitch about socialism aren't really bitching about "socialism" in toto, or if they are fucking stupid. What they're bitching about is socialism outside of the narrow range of things they think socialism is good for. They just don't want to admit they like a little bit of socialism smeared on their capitalist cracker, because that's a naughty word.

    We are not a socialist nation any more than we are a capitalist nation. People who "bitch" about socialism aren't bitching about socialism, they're bitching about the expansion of socialist ideals in a country that already exhibits examples of it.

    I suggest you actually read what I write this time before responding to it.

    PSN/XBL/Steam/Twitter: Teletheus
  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    I'm pretty sure that most of the people that bitch about socialism in America are woefully ignorant about what socialism actually is but see "SOCIALISM!!!11" as a great way to attack Democrats. That's the only thing that can explain people who are on Medicare railing against "Obama's socialist agenda".

    When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
    Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
  • Saint MadnessSaint Madness Registered User
    edited October 2009
    emnmnme wrote: »
    This doesn't quite belong here but the people who would know about it post in this thread. Months back, someone posted a link to a .pdf article by a fundamental Christian group opposed to gay marriage. The article had the top ten reasons people would support gay marriage and instructions on how to refute them. Anyone have that link?

    I'm 90% sure that the list was from National Organisation for Marriage (NOM), it'll probably be on their website.

  • The Crowing OneThe Crowing One Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    We are already a socialist nation. We always have been. People who bitch about socialism aren't really bitching about "socialism" in toto, or if they are fucking stupid. What they're bitching about is socialism outside of the narrow range of things they think socialism is good for. They just don't want to admit they like a little bit of socialism smeared on their capitalist cracker, because that's a naughty word.

    Keynes began "socialist" economics as now applied to practically every government.

    We're a heavily socialized country, and when you look at programs like the USPS, SS and Medicare, you'll see that we're a wildly successful socialized country.

    3rddocbottom.jpg
Sign In or Register to comment.