well, if you're going to listen to your loudness-wars compressed master through your 128 kbit mp3 and your software playback replay gain limiter, why not degrade the signal that much further by going wireless and introducing every kind of interference into the signal you can imagine, all while boosting the frequency at 100 hz so loud that all you can hear is the thud, anyways? no, listen. i'm a sound design artist. and i'm making a valid point. nobody cares about sound quality anymore.
www.cbc.ca/news/technology/apple-iphone-headphone-jack-1.3750086
Tuesday, September 6, 2016
j reacts to the usual calvinist criticism of socialism
"so what is the use of working hard and getting ahead in socialism?"
there isn't one.
that's the point.
stop jockeying for power. go outside and play.
there isn't one.
that's the point.
stop jockeying for power. go outside and play.
at
19:01
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
j reacts to the implied racism in focusing exclusively on china's human rights record
i think the point is that canadians should spend more time pressuring their own government, and less time buying into deflecting tactics in an attempt to work up anti-chinese sentiment. i agree with that, actually. we have a lot of work to do in cleaning up our mining industry, too.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-hong-kong-cemetery-war-dead-1.3749280
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-hong-kong-cemetery-war-dead-1.3749280
at
18:33
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
j reacts to the idea of 2000 being predictive for 2016 (maybe...)
i pointed this out earlier in the cycle, too. but, trump isn't falling in line like bush did...and because of that there's the johnson factor....
it's still in the realm of possible outcomes. if you see johnson evaporate, after all? it could look a whole lot like 2000. right now, i just think he's stretching a little.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/05/opinion/hillary-clinton-gets-gored.html?action=click&contentCollection=opinion&module=NextInCollection®ion=Footer&pgtype=article&version=column&rref=collection%2Fcolumn%2Fpaul-krugman
it's still in the realm of possible outcomes. if you see johnson evaporate, after all? it could look a whole lot like 2000. right now, i just think he's stretching a little.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/05/opinion/hillary-clinton-gets-gored.html?action=click&contentCollection=opinion&module=NextInCollection®ion=Footer&pgtype=article&version=column&rref=collection%2Fcolumn%2Fpaul-krugman
at
18:15
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
j reacts to the idea that markets will reduce wait times (it's laughable nonsense)
"Greater choice among insurance providers would encourage more competition, which would boost efficiency and improve access, Labrie said."
this is complete nonsense, and no study anywhere has ever backed this up. it's faith-based reasoning that reduces to a mythology of free markets.
markets are not a way to create resources, they are a way to distribute them. opening up a market in health care will consequently not reduce wait times, but merely redistribute them to the less wealthy. at the end of the day, you have x resources to distribute regardless of how you distribute them.
the system does not need more competition. the system needs more funding.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/landmark-private-health-care-lawsuit-heads-to-court-1.3749117
this is not about reducing wait times. it's about rich people thinking they should have the privilege to jump the queue. and, i expect the court to reject the arguments.
i do at least hope that the court has learned that it should not articulate itself the way it did in the quebec ruling. the quebec ruling was not designed to allow for private health insurance. it was designed to increase funding. but, the government used it as an opportunity to open up an industry. the court was not expecting the government to interpret it that way.
in fact, if the reverse question were presented to the court in the quebec context, i would expect it to be more explicit in upholding the canada health act.
the court needs to be more careful, this time. i expect it will be.
to be clear...
you could articulate the question one of two ways.
you could argue that the ban on private insurance means you have to wait in line and this is unfair. or, you could argue that allowing private insurance increases wait times by distributing resources to the wealthy and this is unfair. on some level, both arguments are valid. the question is what is of greater priority: equality or hierarchy.
what the court can do is determine if the law is unconstitutional or not. it has not previously ruled against the law, despite the rumblings in the right-wing media. what it has done in the past is agree that wait times are too long and that the state should take steps to reduce them. the state then determined that it should offer private services, rather than increase funding.
the problem is that the premise was absurd. the court got sloppy. it was a terrible ruling. wait times in quebec have not reduced. and that piece of evidence will likely not be viewed as irrelevant.
the precise question before the court is whether the ban on private insurance is restricting access to health care. the court needs to be explicit in citing evidence that explicitly rejects this argument as specious, rather than trying to use it as an opportunity to coerce the government into increasing funding. last time, it backfired. they got sloppy. they need to not repeat that error.
in the mean time, i would call on civil liberties groups in quebec to reverse the quebec government's misinterpretation of the previous ruling.
this is the result of allowing private insurance in quebec, instead of tackling the issue at a funding level.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/06/03/quebec-wait-times_n_10278874.html
this is complete nonsense, and no study anywhere has ever backed this up. it's faith-based reasoning that reduces to a mythology of free markets.
markets are not a way to create resources, they are a way to distribute them. opening up a market in health care will consequently not reduce wait times, but merely redistribute them to the less wealthy. at the end of the day, you have x resources to distribute regardless of how you distribute them.
the system does not need more competition. the system needs more funding.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/landmark-private-health-care-lawsuit-heads-to-court-1.3749117
this is not about reducing wait times. it's about rich people thinking they should have the privilege to jump the queue. and, i expect the court to reject the arguments.
i do at least hope that the court has learned that it should not articulate itself the way it did in the quebec ruling. the quebec ruling was not designed to allow for private health insurance. it was designed to increase funding. but, the government used it as an opportunity to open up an industry. the court was not expecting the government to interpret it that way.
in fact, if the reverse question were presented to the court in the quebec context, i would expect it to be more explicit in upholding the canada health act.
the court needs to be more careful, this time. i expect it will be.
to be clear...
you could articulate the question one of two ways.
you could argue that the ban on private insurance means you have to wait in line and this is unfair. or, you could argue that allowing private insurance increases wait times by distributing resources to the wealthy and this is unfair. on some level, both arguments are valid. the question is what is of greater priority: equality or hierarchy.
what the court can do is determine if the law is unconstitutional or not. it has not previously ruled against the law, despite the rumblings in the right-wing media. what it has done in the past is agree that wait times are too long and that the state should take steps to reduce them. the state then determined that it should offer private services, rather than increase funding.
the problem is that the premise was absurd. the court got sloppy. it was a terrible ruling. wait times in quebec have not reduced. and that piece of evidence will likely not be viewed as irrelevant.
the precise question before the court is whether the ban on private insurance is restricting access to health care. the court needs to be explicit in citing evidence that explicitly rejects this argument as specious, rather than trying to use it as an opportunity to coerce the government into increasing funding. last time, it backfired. they got sloppy. they need to not repeat that error.
in the mean time, i would call on civil liberties groups in quebec to reverse the quebec government's misinterpretation of the previous ruling.
this is the result of allowing private insurance in quebec, instead of tackling the issue at a funding level.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/06/03/quebec-wait-times_n_10278874.html
at
17:59
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
j reacts to the curious cnn poll with trump ahead
well, the cnn poll released today is a real poll, at least. wtf?
well, a few days ago, i was talking about how the way that you interpolate the undecideds is key to predicting the outcome. you'll notice something different about this poll - it adds up to 97%. most of the polls released over the last few months add up to around 90%. and, the difference went entirely to trump.
to be clear....
clinton is about flat.
johnson is about flat.
stein is about flat.
but, trump made up 6-7 points as the undecideds fell to the margins.
a few days ago, i asked the question: what does undecided actually mean? we had data indicating that both candidates were unpopular, but no way to really piece anything causal together. does it mean you hate both candidates? and will vote third party? or will stay home? so, will it distribute?
what this poll seems to suggest is that undecideds may be leaning heavily towards trump.
i find that very hard to believe, given his numbers. if you believe this poll, he's running twenty points ahead of his approval ratings.
note that the labour day weekend is always perilous to poll over and is known for producing outliers. but, we'll have to see what happens.
also note that while the nbc poll is more in line with the trendlines, the methodology is garbage and it should be ignored.
there may be a...
this idea is articulated a lot of ways. but, the idea is that you may get some bias in polling around issues of race.
given the media coverage, i would acknowledge the plausibility that a subset of people may be embarrassed to admit they plan to vote for trump. they may be defaulting to undecided.
i don't want to call that a "shy conservative effect", or a reverse anything effect. it's just people not wanting to admit it.
to suggest that this is the entire undecided vote, however, strikes me as too much.
so, even if this poll is revealing something that has to this point been hidden, i'm still more likely to point to the labour day weekend as an exaggerating factor. if trump voters are lower income and less educated, they're more likely to be home and ready to pick up the phone this weekend.
and, why did the undecideds come down this week, all of a sudden? perhaps they're more affluent.
i'm not going to make predictions. again: i don't think it's possible to predict the outcome of elections. i'm just pointing out reasons to be careful with this poll, and reasons it may end up in right field. or, may be illuminating, too.
at least note that it is a real poll.
well, a few days ago, i was talking about how the way that you interpolate the undecideds is key to predicting the outcome. you'll notice something different about this poll - it adds up to 97%. most of the polls released over the last few months add up to around 90%. and, the difference went entirely to trump.
to be clear....
clinton is about flat.
johnson is about flat.
stein is about flat.
but, trump made up 6-7 points as the undecideds fell to the margins.
a few days ago, i asked the question: what does undecided actually mean? we had data indicating that both candidates were unpopular, but no way to really piece anything causal together. does it mean you hate both candidates? and will vote third party? or will stay home? so, will it distribute?
what this poll seems to suggest is that undecideds may be leaning heavily towards trump.
i find that very hard to believe, given his numbers. if you believe this poll, he's running twenty points ahead of his approval ratings.
note that the labour day weekend is always perilous to poll over and is known for producing outliers. but, we'll have to see what happens.
also note that while the nbc poll is more in line with the trendlines, the methodology is garbage and it should be ignored.
there may be a...
this idea is articulated a lot of ways. but, the idea is that you may get some bias in polling around issues of race.
given the media coverage, i would acknowledge the plausibility that a subset of people may be embarrassed to admit they plan to vote for trump. they may be defaulting to undecided.
i don't want to call that a "shy conservative effect", or a reverse anything effect. it's just people not wanting to admit it.
to suggest that this is the entire undecided vote, however, strikes me as too much.
so, even if this poll is revealing something that has to this point been hidden, i'm still more likely to point to the labour day weekend as an exaggerating factor. if trump voters are lower income and less educated, they're more likely to be home and ready to pick up the phone this weekend.
and, why did the undecideds come down this week, all of a sudden? perhaps they're more affluent.
i'm not going to make predictions. again: i don't think it's possible to predict the outcome of elections. i'm just pointing out reasons to be careful with this poll, and reasons it may end up in right field. or, may be illuminating, too.
at least note that it is a real poll.
at
17:03
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
this is how you have to do it. i wish there was a better way. there isn't.
---
channel #1 DADADRat27
This is private land let the owners do what they want with it
Dumb hippies
jessica
this is actually a good lesson about private property: it only exists if you have the ability to protect it through force.
who lost on this day?
Mark
My ancestors were harassed, persecuted in Europe in the 1600-1700's. Their houses burned down and some executed. By your logic i have a right to take back those pieces of land they owned. Of course it is obvious this would be ridiculous, and so is the claim that the descendants of the people wronged need reimbursement.
jessica
why is it obvious that this is ridiculous? you're being too vague to make a determination.
off the top of my head, i can think of a dozen absolutely valid land claim cases in eastern europe.
depending on the circumstances, reparations may be more feasible. that doesn't make them invalid.
artifacts that were stolen during the second world war are still being returned, to this day.....
---
channel #1 DADADRat27
This is private land let the owners do what they want with it
Dumb hippies
jessica
this is actually a good lesson about private property: it only exists if you have the ability to protect it through force.
who lost on this day?
Mark
My ancestors were harassed, persecuted in Europe in the 1600-1700's. Their houses burned down and some executed. By your logic i have a right to take back those pieces of land they owned. Of course it is obvious this would be ridiculous, and so is the claim that the descendants of the people wronged need reimbursement.
jessica
why is it obvious that this is ridiculous? you're being too vague to make a determination.
off the top of my head, i can think of a dozen absolutely valid land claim cases in eastern europe.
depending on the circumstances, reparations may be more feasible. that doesn't make them invalid.
artifacts that were stolen during the second world war are still being returned, to this day.....
at
03:37
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
it's an outrageous conspiracy theory!
....or perhaps it is what it is.
William Gardanis
She is FINISHED Its OVER
jessica
if she had a viable opponent, perhaps.
----
Ben Petrie
Trumps seventy and 100X fitter that that zombie.
jessica
they're about the same age and he's certainly in better health. but, his policies are moronic. you'd have to be retarded...and the country is simply not about to go full retard.
Hayabusa Dragon
Sorry lady but you and the insane people like you are full retarded. Democrats have been in charge for quite some time and they have been running us into the ground. Just because she talks about families doesnt mean a damn thing. She will sell your children into the global slavery that is a socialist government she wants! Wake up! SHE doesnt know what made America great and thats why she wants to destroy it. Communism and socialism are not what made us great! She is a liar and you and anyone voting for her are tools! So she will give you b.s. social programs that are full of false altruism and in return you sell your souls and children to her global take over! Look into the causes of all things that hurt freedom and you will find socialism and communism. Its a fact. They want you to destroy your morals and accept false emotionally charged solutions to the problems THEY create!
jessica
see, it takes a special kind of retard to call a hyper-capitalist, neo-liberal a communist. the country's just not there, as a whole.
i am a socialist. hillary clinton is not.
if hillary clinton is elected, she will almost certainly be the most right-wing president since kennedy.
she may even be more right-wing than kennedy...
Despiser Despised
Youre stupid. Move to Venezuela or Cuba then, cunt... At some point America is going to fight you nasty indoctrinated leftwits to the death.
McCarthy wasnt a verb, McCarthy was a Prophet.
jessica
see, i don't mind hearing that from you. but, what you don't understand is that she agrees with you. her record is very clear. she's by far the more pro-capitalist of the two. she's the poster woman for crony capitalism.
i was a sanders supporter, because i am a socialist. over here on the left, we really don't like her very much - because she's so blatantly corporatist, so blatantly wall street funded, so blatantly neo-liberal.
again, it takes a special kind of retard to be so disconnected from reality as to think that the most pro-capitalist candidate in decades is some kind of communist.
JudgeJulieLit
Hillary (the once and always, still proclaims "proud" Goldwater Girl) is right wing; like BG avidly pro- "nuke Vietnam off the map" (no sense of radiation and other lethal blowback) and anti- passage of the landmark US Civil Rights and Voting Rights bills.
Kennedy (who in '62 Cuban missile crisis averted nuclear war, and '63 with Russia signed the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, and who ideated the Civil Rights and Voting Rights bills) was not right wing.
jessica
kennedy was responsible for escalating vietnam and nearly starting a war over cuba, which khruschev backed off from at the last minute. if the bombs had dropped, and we had history books afterwards, kennedy would have been recorded as responsible everywhere outside of the united states.
nor was he in favour of civil rights. in fact, he slowed down the process substantially out of fear of losing votes from southern whites.
but, more to the point, he was also involved in the red scare during the 50s, working closely with mccarthy for a time.
he was the most conservative president that the united states has had in the modern (post-war) period.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/11/22/americans-think-john-f-kennedy-was-one-of-our-greatest-presidents-he-wasnt/
https://www.buzzfeed.com/irastoll/21-ways-jfk-was-actually-a-conservative-fjkq?utm_term=.lgkj1aAAG#.vxvkQA99D
Despiser Despised
Youre so fucking dumb Ill bet you think the NAZIs were "right wing", lol... You Socialists are the dumbest motherfuckers on Earth.
Bernie just bought his THIRD fucking house, dimwit...
jessica
yeah, i'm pretty sure the nazis were about as right-wing as you can get.
....and i don't know why how many houses sanders owns is relevant. he's a politician. he's not a religious icon. that kind of cult of personality is a right-wing thing.
i mean, he could own ten houses for all i care, so long as he pays his taxes and keeps fighting for universal health care.
DH
We need a true socialist. Sanders would have been the best. I'm thinking someone like Nicolás Maduro. Oh I get the chills just thinking about it.
jessica
maduro is not a socialist, either. what the united states needs right now, first and foremost, is a social movement to throw the republicans out of congress. it doesn't matter who the president is when the congress is run by the oil industry.
Hoodlum Priest
then move to a socialist country. But you won't because you're a coward.
jessica
the thing with socialism is that you can't do it on a country by country basis. socialism has to be global or not at all. this is actually the reason it's had such a hard time working, because we've been stuck in these situations where socialism inevitably has to do business with capitalism. and, of course it can't compete - the whole point of socialism is to abolish competition over resources in favour of the rational distribution of them.
so, venezuela has a lot of oil and not a lot of arable land. it can't have socialism under those circumstances, because it has to trade it's oil for food with a capitalist state and this forces down capitalism from above. all you end up with is yet another type of crony capitalism.
telling us to move somewhere else isn't going to work, unless that somewhere else never has to trade with the outside world. that doesn't exist. it can't exist. so, we're going to have to keep fighting it out....
....and understand that our side thinks this fight never ends.
Rat Ghost
Nazis were big government socialists, pretty much everything the American right and the old GOP absolutely stand against. Yes, the Nazis were nationalists so they were obsessed with their own Germanic identity and historical significance in the development of the German nation state and to this end, the left see Hitler and the NAZIs as right-wing. But basically, the term "NAZI" is an acronym for National sozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei -- National Socialist German Workers Party. Note the term "sozialistische" ---- meaning socialist. Note the term "workers party" -- very leftwing, even communist. There is nobody on any degree of the right in America today that supports socialism or a "workers party" in any form. These are terms used regularly by the worldwide left, not the right. The NAZIs were big government statists and while there were features of NAZISM that to leftists seem to echo ideas of American conservatism, the NAZIs were statists who put national government ahead of private enterprise. The NAZIs accepted private enterprise insofar as they could use their power to control it, tax it, regulate it, and partner with it to further the NAZI social and political goals and objectives much like today's Democrat Party.
Despiser Despised
Nazism is only "right wing" when using the European Political spectrum to measure. The American left understands this tactic very well. Just as McCarthy warned us all about 70 years ago. Americas version of "right wing" is Libertarian Individualism, limited Govt and low taxation. The TEA PARTY. The polar opposite of Democrats never ending projection. Collectivists are evil anti Americans.
I dont consider the Democrat party a Political party at all They are a crime syndicate posing as a Political Party.
Another perfect example of this tactic is with David Duke being portrayed as a Republican. He was a life long Democrat and was elected to the LA House as a Democrat. When he lost an election is when he "decided" he would join the GOP. He was never elected to ANY office or position of power as a Republican. Yet the narrative not only survives but grows stronger with each indoctrinated generation.
Another is Trent Lott at Robert Byrds 90th Birthday. Robert Byrd was a grand kleage of the KKK yet Trent Lotts tells a bad joke and is run out of the political arena altogether while Byrd was held up as a Democrat hero, and still is.
Democrats lost America's first Civil War because they enslaved Black people. Democrats are going to lose America's second Civil War because they attempted to enslave everyone else...
Not every Democrat was a KuKluxKlan member, but every KuKluxKlan member was a democrat.
jessica
socialism means that the means of production are owned by the people, not by capital. that is, socialism is the abolition of private property. the nazi system was a system of corporatism, where private property reigned supreme in the hands of a small number of cartels and workers were treated as slaves. the right refers to this as "crony capitalism", or "mercantilism", which was first designed by the conservative party in the united kingdom and is as far to the right of the spectrum as is possible.
the left/right distinction came out of the french revolution. the right were those that supported rule by the aristocracy - the bourgeoisie, the corporate class, the cartels. this is capitalism as we know it. the left were those that supported rule by the people. this included the kind of market socialism pushed by proudhon, and which has been distorted beyond recognition by the contemporary american right.
so, yes - the nazis were extremely right-wing because they were all about dominant hierarchies, private property and ruling classes.
fwiw - and i've been trying to be clear on this point - i would consider both the republicans and the democrats to be on the far right of the spectrum. but, even reagan acknowledged the value of keynesian spending. clinton may end up being the biggest fiscal conservative the country has seen since kennedy.
Despiser Despised
Communism advocates the abolition of private property; socialism advocates government ownership of the means of production (the people are not this govt). Fascism leaves that property in private hands–then shackles those hands, with every economic decision being directed by the state. The American right despises all three. The American left demands all three. My god youre scary dumb.
Your indoctrination is showing clearly. Labels are tools for Libidot Marxists who use them to confuse the easily confused, like you. Youre a "useful idiot" and too dumb to know it.
Youre either a Collectivist or an Individualist, PERIOD. America was founded upon the principles of INDIVIDUALISM (truly the first progressives) and it is clearly written into ALL of our founding documents. Collectivism is ANTI AMERICAN by its very nature you blind dumb moronic cunt.
National socialist NAZIs are only right wing while viewing from the European political spectrum, idiot. Communists on the left Fascists on teh right and Socialists ALL. America goes FAR right, almost to anarchy, comparatively speaking.
What part of "SOCIALIST" in NAZI dont you understand? Every nation has Nationalistic tendencies. Its why they are called NATIONS, dimwit.
The contemporary American Right created the Tea Party. Its goal was to reduce the size and scope of Govt, lower taxes, hold elected officials accountable all while maintaining private property rights as well as Constitutional rights. Pretty much the complete opposite of the indoctrination you received and the opposite of what modern regressive libidots have done for 50 years, dimwit.
To ANY modern dimwitted Libidiot Regressive 0bamacare is a "right" and the 2nd amendment isnt. That should be all the proof you need. But youre indoctrinated stupid like any NAZI Youth is.
Leftist rhetoric consists of beautiful lies concealing ugly truths.
Dimwit, anarchy is about as "right wing" as you can get. Nobody I know has ever advocated anarchy except indoctrinated leftwits of the 1% movement BS, whom actually consider themselves Socialists believe it or not, lol. It was actually quite comical watching a hippie take a shit on a unionized BIG GOVT Police car then blame Glenn Beck...
I guess you dont know what Politics even is. The right didn't want Kensyian economic policy (ask Milton Friedman) but were forced to negotiate with liars on the left to move "Politics" forward. Reagan was called a uniter of the parties, IMO that was never a good thing.
Do you think GW Bush really wanted Part D or No child left behind?? No he was politicking for future Democrat support in Iraq... And the Democrats slapped him in the face with it afterward and laughed. Ted Kennedy, murderer leading the charge with Grand Kleagle of the KKK (Hillary's hero) Robert Byrd right on his heels.
jessica
once again: socialism is the social ownership of the means of production. most socialists reject marx as authoritarian, and historical materialism as teleological. i identify as a libertarian socialist in the tradition of bakunin, kropotkin and malatesta.
there is no american left. i've stated this repeatedly. the democrats and the republicans are almost identical in policy and both represent the extreme right of the corporatist spectrum. obamacare was designed by the heritage institute as a means to maximize profit for shareholders; it is extremely right-wing in scope and implementation.
the vision of the tea party is a society run by large property owners - the bourgeois, the cartels, the bankers, the aristocrats. it is a vision that is not dissimilar from the nazi state. remember: the layer of government is merely a means of oversight for capital.
barack obama is a conservative.
socialism is individualism because it is designed to allow for full positive freedom. markets are collectivism because they enforce the tyranny of supply and demand, converting you into a slave of consensus. you're the one that's brainwashed. i don't have the time or interest in this. you're merely demonstrating my point.
anarchism is in fact a socialist ideology. it broke with marx at the second international in the 1870s, and developed largely from the writings of bakunin. you're confusion is a consequence of your ignorance. please take the time to educate yourself on the history of anarchism as a synonym for "libertarian socialism" before you respond further.
the point i was trying to make about reagan was that the politicking was on the other side of the spectrum. he didn't cut taxes because he thought it would create jobs.
Despiser Despised
You're taking simple concepts adding a bunch of bullshit to them so you can twist it into knots to fit your narrative, just as Marx suggested many times to his useful idiots.
Socialism, in any of its nasty forms has ever worked because of HUMAN NATURE... Capitalism does in fact work and has been proven. What America has now is NOT Capitalism in any way shape or form.
Sure, 0bama is a Conservative, lol. Taking over 1/5th of our economy in the form of Healthcare Insurance is sooo Conservative, lol. Do you listen to yourself at all?.
No amount of education can overcome Liberal stupidity.
jessica
you say that like it's empirical fact. listen: i reject the idea of human nature in favour of a tabula rasa. we're blank slates. are we assholes? mostly. but, we're taught to be assholes.
again: i'm not a marxist. marxism is authoritarian; i'm a libertarian socialist - an anarchist. look up bakunin's attack on marx. it's pretty devastating.
i'm not a liberal, either. you're a liberal.
obamacare is not single payer. it is not a government take over of anything. it's a law that forces you to buy private insurance. that's a market exchange. you should support this.
joe ramone
Holy fuck!!! Your so-called mind is warped. Socialism is where the government CONTROLS AND DISTRIBUTES the means of production. But your warped definition made it seem like the "people" were actually in control of their own companies and calling the shots.
jessica
no. the system where the government controls industry is called crony capitalism. as mentioned, it was developed largely in britain by the conservative party, through the creation of crown corporations (like the east india company, or the hudson's bay company). this was essentially the model that the nazis used in their cartelization of the economy - although one could also draw comparisons to the gilded era in the united states, before the trusts were broken up.
you seem to be implying that the soviet union was a socialist state. this is false. the academic term used to describe the economy of the soviet union is state capitalism.
there is one thing that the right-wingers get right, and it is that the soviets and nazis had essentially the same economic structure. but, the reason for this is that the soviets were capitalist, not that the nazis were communist.
again: the model is toryism. it's not liberalism. it's not market theory. but, it's firmly in the capitalist realm of cronyism & mercantilism.
if you hate the soviets, i agree with you. remember: the soviets slaughtered tens of thousands of leftists in their purges. they stamped out legitimate socialist revolts with inhuman cruelty. but, you're simply misinformed to conflate these things with the left.
Rat Ghost
Uhhh, the US Constitution pretty much prohibits the federal government from "forcing" the American citizen to buy anything. Read the Constitution and please tell me where it says the feds can tell me (or you) what product they want me to buy. It's not really private if the government is forcing you to buy it. It's more like an insidious, ill-conceived partnership between private companies and the federal government which victimizes the US citizen into obtaining something they don't want. I call it fascism. Obamacare is currently not single payer, but it hopes to be that way. The grand idea behind Obamacare was that it would break the health insurance companies financially covering many individuals with preexisting, often catastrophic health conditions.
Once the Insurance companies go broke or bow out of the system -- which is happening now, the government takes health car over from th failed insurance companies because individual health coverage is now law of the land --- Thank you justice Roberts and the SCOTUS. . And then BINGO! Obama and the liberal left/progressive/radicals/Marxists get what they have always dreamed of --- government run health care with the feds controlling your every move, all of your life, cradle to grave.
Where's the "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor" that Obama promised?? Where's the "If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan" that Obama promised?? Where's the " $2,500 per family average yearly health care savings" Obama was promising?? Never happened. It was all bullshit right from the inception.
Obamacare is the worst and most expensive government monstrosity ever forced upon the American people. It was designed to fail. It was all lies from the very beginning and soon we will all be giving up large percentages of our income to pay for it once it becomes so-called "single payer". And Single Payer is really a big lie too because it's not the government paying for it, it's the American people who will be taxed into the poor house to pay for it. The government just "redistributes' it.
jessica
see, i think this is a lot of conspiratorial drivel with essentially no supporting evidence. the supreme court already ruled that it's constitutional because it's a tax, but i agree that this is flawed logic.
think of it like this: the government forces you to buy auto insurance and a slew of other types of insurance. are these all unconstitutional? is the car insurance industry an extension of the government?
the main flaw in your conspiracy theory is intent. why would the insurance companies, who have the democrats in their back pockets, want single payer? they'd lose money. rather, if the insurance industry could design a system themselves, it would look exactly like obamacare. and, guess what: that's the reality. obamacare was written by the insurance industry, then placed into law by bought lobbyists.
if they wanted single payer, they would have just put in single payer. but, the president wouldn't even support the public option.
obamacare was designed to prevent single payer. from it's start in the heritage institute. to it's championing by newt gingrich in the 90s. to it's implementation by mitt romney in massachusettts. to it's implementation, nationally.
worse, the debate on the left has shifted. if you listen to these dipshit democrats talk, they no longer want to fight for single-payer. they want to fight to "save obamacare".
take sanders as an example. he supported single payer. the right-wing, democratic-backed media attacked him for wanting to "repeal obamacare" - which was technically true. but, consistently taken out of context.
this then created a backlash of hillary supporters that thought sanders was a menace to society because he wanted to repeal obamacare. there were rallies to "save obamacare".
this is the new debate: repeal or maintain obamacare. single payer is out of the spectrum. and, the fucking idiots have fallen right in line.
joe ramone
You're just another lefty socialist scumbag who knows everything yet knows nothing.
CRONY Capitalism is a term used when special favors are given to certain business owners/corporations. It has NOTHING to do with the government controlling and distributing the means of production as opposed to the business' owners doing so.
Make sure to get back to me with yet another incorrect definition and example.
Oh shit. You're a sick-in-the-head TRANNY!!! Bwahahahaha. Freaks, like you, should be blackballed from society. Oh wait a second. You already are.
jessica
you're describing a symptom. so, you could consider oil subsidies as a symptom of crony capitalism. but, why do we have these oil subsidies? because the state is operated by capital: bribery, lobbyists, corruption. crony capitalism is consequently the collusion between state and capital.
you could argue the cartels are different because they're outside government, but then you're missing the point. there's a revolving door. there's regulatory capture. there's an oligarchy in the ruling class, and the lines are blurred.
i'm actually being generous in calling this "crony capitalism" and allowing you the delusions of market theory. you can't actually have a "free market". it's utopian claptrap. all capitalism is crony capitalism, is toryism, is mercantilism....
again: the economic system in nazi germany was one where a cartel system of elite bourgeois property owners controlled and operated everything. it was essentially the same system that existed in colonial britain. it had parallels in gilded era america. you can recoil against this characterization of capitalism, if you'd like. but the nazi economy had nothing to do with the abolition of private property, the elimination of the bureaucracy, democratization in production or ensuring justice in distribution.
in fact, they gassed people that wanted that. they rounded socialists, communists and even liberals up and put them in gas chambers. they killed them by the thousands. they had no such persecution directed at conservatives or capitalists.
joe ramone
Fucking TRANNY!!! Bwahahahahaaha. Do your neighborhood, your family and the world a huge favor and hang yourself.
By the way, TRANNY, perhaps you should spend as much effort developing a career as opposed to typing out 5 paragraph replies on youtube that people won't read. Maybe then you wouldn't have to worry about big daddy government holding your limp-wristed TRANNY hand through life. Then again, who the fuck would hire a freak TRANNY, like you.
jessica
this is the guy that's accusing leftists of sounding like nazis. what, you're too fiscally conservative to gas me?
joe ramone
hey TRANNY, why don't you cut and paste my comments were I compared lefties to Nazis. I want to read it. Come on, TRANNY. Let's see it.
jessica
listen: i just don't want to have a career. i'm sorry. it's a quality of life issue. i mean, you only have a certain amount of time to live on this planet. who wants to waste it at work?
joe ramone
Oh and TRANNY, I would kick the shit out of you if I ever had the chance.
jessica
would you wear a brown shirt when you're beating the shit out of me?
joe ramone
Time for my family and myself to go have a nice rib dinner at Carson's. That's one luxury people who earn money can afford. Meanwhile, you'll sit on youtube and do nothing. Enjoy!!!
jessica
well, it's a question of priorities. just remember: while you're wasting your life away as a slave, i'm at home enjoying myself. if you think that's worth a rib dinner from time to time, good for you. i'm not so easily amused.
joe ramone
Hey TRANNY, for laughs I called my wife over and told her to take a look at your youtube profile. Her reaction, "Ewwwwwww. I don't want to look at that thing.".
jessica
well, what do you want? an apology?
....or perhaps it is what it is.
William Gardanis
She is FINISHED Its OVER
jessica
if she had a viable opponent, perhaps.
----
Ben Petrie
Trumps seventy and 100X fitter that that zombie.
jessica
they're about the same age and he's certainly in better health. but, his policies are moronic. you'd have to be retarded...and the country is simply not about to go full retard.
Hayabusa Dragon
Sorry lady but you and the insane people like you are full retarded. Democrats have been in charge for quite some time and they have been running us into the ground. Just because she talks about families doesnt mean a damn thing. She will sell your children into the global slavery that is a socialist government she wants! Wake up! SHE doesnt know what made America great and thats why she wants to destroy it. Communism and socialism are not what made us great! She is a liar and you and anyone voting for her are tools! So she will give you b.s. social programs that are full of false altruism and in return you sell your souls and children to her global take over! Look into the causes of all things that hurt freedom and you will find socialism and communism. Its a fact. They want you to destroy your morals and accept false emotionally charged solutions to the problems THEY create!
jessica
see, it takes a special kind of retard to call a hyper-capitalist, neo-liberal a communist. the country's just not there, as a whole.
i am a socialist. hillary clinton is not.
if hillary clinton is elected, she will almost certainly be the most right-wing president since kennedy.
she may even be more right-wing than kennedy...
Despiser Despised
Youre stupid. Move to Venezuela or Cuba then, cunt... At some point America is going to fight you nasty indoctrinated leftwits to the death.
McCarthy wasnt a verb, McCarthy was a Prophet.
jessica
see, i don't mind hearing that from you. but, what you don't understand is that she agrees with you. her record is very clear. she's by far the more pro-capitalist of the two. she's the poster woman for crony capitalism.
i was a sanders supporter, because i am a socialist. over here on the left, we really don't like her very much - because she's so blatantly corporatist, so blatantly wall street funded, so blatantly neo-liberal.
again, it takes a special kind of retard to be so disconnected from reality as to think that the most pro-capitalist candidate in decades is some kind of communist.
JudgeJulieLit
Hillary (the once and always, still proclaims "proud" Goldwater Girl) is right wing; like BG avidly pro- "nuke Vietnam off the map" (no sense of radiation and other lethal blowback) and anti- passage of the landmark US Civil Rights and Voting Rights bills.
Kennedy (who in '62 Cuban missile crisis averted nuclear war, and '63 with Russia signed the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, and who ideated the Civil Rights and Voting Rights bills) was not right wing.
jessica
kennedy was responsible for escalating vietnam and nearly starting a war over cuba, which khruschev backed off from at the last minute. if the bombs had dropped, and we had history books afterwards, kennedy would have been recorded as responsible everywhere outside of the united states.
nor was he in favour of civil rights. in fact, he slowed down the process substantially out of fear of losing votes from southern whites.
but, more to the point, he was also involved in the red scare during the 50s, working closely with mccarthy for a time.
he was the most conservative president that the united states has had in the modern (post-war) period.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/11/22/americans-think-john-f-kennedy-was-one-of-our-greatest-presidents-he-wasnt/
https://www.buzzfeed.com/irastoll/21-ways-jfk-was-actually-a-conservative-fjkq?utm_term=.lgkj1aAAG#.vxvkQA99D
Despiser Despised
Youre so fucking dumb Ill bet you think the NAZIs were "right wing", lol... You Socialists are the dumbest motherfuckers on Earth.
Bernie just bought his THIRD fucking house, dimwit...
jessica
yeah, i'm pretty sure the nazis were about as right-wing as you can get.
....and i don't know why how many houses sanders owns is relevant. he's a politician. he's not a religious icon. that kind of cult of personality is a right-wing thing.
i mean, he could own ten houses for all i care, so long as he pays his taxes and keeps fighting for universal health care.
DH
We need a true socialist. Sanders would have been the best. I'm thinking someone like Nicolás Maduro. Oh I get the chills just thinking about it.
jessica
maduro is not a socialist, either. what the united states needs right now, first and foremost, is a social movement to throw the republicans out of congress. it doesn't matter who the president is when the congress is run by the oil industry.
Hoodlum Priest
then move to a socialist country. But you won't because you're a coward.
jessica
the thing with socialism is that you can't do it on a country by country basis. socialism has to be global or not at all. this is actually the reason it's had such a hard time working, because we've been stuck in these situations where socialism inevitably has to do business with capitalism. and, of course it can't compete - the whole point of socialism is to abolish competition over resources in favour of the rational distribution of them.
so, venezuela has a lot of oil and not a lot of arable land. it can't have socialism under those circumstances, because it has to trade it's oil for food with a capitalist state and this forces down capitalism from above. all you end up with is yet another type of crony capitalism.
telling us to move somewhere else isn't going to work, unless that somewhere else never has to trade with the outside world. that doesn't exist. it can't exist. so, we're going to have to keep fighting it out....
....and understand that our side thinks this fight never ends.
Rat Ghost
Nazis were big government socialists, pretty much everything the American right and the old GOP absolutely stand against. Yes, the Nazis were nationalists so they were obsessed with their own Germanic identity and historical significance in the development of the German nation state and to this end, the left see Hitler and the NAZIs as right-wing. But basically, the term "NAZI" is an acronym for National sozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei -- National Socialist German Workers Party. Note the term "sozialistische" ---- meaning socialist. Note the term "workers party" -- very leftwing, even communist. There is nobody on any degree of the right in America today that supports socialism or a "workers party" in any form. These are terms used regularly by the worldwide left, not the right. The NAZIs were big government statists and while there were features of NAZISM that to leftists seem to echo ideas of American conservatism, the NAZIs were statists who put national government ahead of private enterprise. The NAZIs accepted private enterprise insofar as they could use their power to control it, tax it, regulate it, and partner with it to further the NAZI social and political goals and objectives much like today's Democrat Party.
Despiser Despised
Nazism is only "right wing" when using the European Political spectrum to measure. The American left understands this tactic very well. Just as McCarthy warned us all about 70 years ago. Americas version of "right wing" is Libertarian Individualism, limited Govt and low taxation. The TEA PARTY. The polar opposite of Democrats never ending projection. Collectivists are evil anti Americans.
I dont consider the Democrat party a Political party at all They are a crime syndicate posing as a Political Party.
Another perfect example of this tactic is with David Duke being portrayed as a Republican. He was a life long Democrat and was elected to the LA House as a Democrat. When he lost an election is when he "decided" he would join the GOP. He was never elected to ANY office or position of power as a Republican. Yet the narrative not only survives but grows stronger with each indoctrinated generation.
Another is Trent Lott at Robert Byrds 90th Birthday. Robert Byrd was a grand kleage of the KKK yet Trent Lotts tells a bad joke and is run out of the political arena altogether while Byrd was held up as a Democrat hero, and still is.
Democrats lost America's first Civil War because they enslaved Black people. Democrats are going to lose America's second Civil War because they attempted to enslave everyone else...
Not every Democrat was a KuKluxKlan member, but every KuKluxKlan member was a democrat.
jessica
socialism means that the means of production are owned by the people, not by capital. that is, socialism is the abolition of private property. the nazi system was a system of corporatism, where private property reigned supreme in the hands of a small number of cartels and workers were treated as slaves. the right refers to this as "crony capitalism", or "mercantilism", which was first designed by the conservative party in the united kingdom and is as far to the right of the spectrum as is possible.
the left/right distinction came out of the french revolution. the right were those that supported rule by the aristocracy - the bourgeoisie, the corporate class, the cartels. this is capitalism as we know it. the left were those that supported rule by the people. this included the kind of market socialism pushed by proudhon, and which has been distorted beyond recognition by the contemporary american right.
so, yes - the nazis were extremely right-wing because they were all about dominant hierarchies, private property and ruling classes.
fwiw - and i've been trying to be clear on this point - i would consider both the republicans and the democrats to be on the far right of the spectrum. but, even reagan acknowledged the value of keynesian spending. clinton may end up being the biggest fiscal conservative the country has seen since kennedy.
Despiser Despised
Communism advocates the abolition of private property; socialism advocates government ownership of the means of production (the people are not this govt). Fascism leaves that property in private hands–then shackles those hands, with every economic decision being directed by the state. The American right despises all three. The American left demands all three. My god youre scary dumb.
Your indoctrination is showing clearly. Labels are tools for Libidot Marxists who use them to confuse the easily confused, like you. Youre a "useful idiot" and too dumb to know it.
Youre either a Collectivist or an Individualist, PERIOD. America was founded upon the principles of INDIVIDUALISM (truly the first progressives) and it is clearly written into ALL of our founding documents. Collectivism is ANTI AMERICAN by its very nature you blind dumb moronic cunt.
National socialist NAZIs are only right wing while viewing from the European political spectrum, idiot. Communists on the left Fascists on teh right and Socialists ALL. America goes FAR right, almost to anarchy, comparatively speaking.
What part of "SOCIALIST" in NAZI dont you understand? Every nation has Nationalistic tendencies. Its why they are called NATIONS, dimwit.
The contemporary American Right created the Tea Party. Its goal was to reduce the size and scope of Govt, lower taxes, hold elected officials accountable all while maintaining private property rights as well as Constitutional rights. Pretty much the complete opposite of the indoctrination you received and the opposite of what modern regressive libidots have done for 50 years, dimwit.
To ANY modern dimwitted Libidiot Regressive 0bamacare is a "right" and the 2nd amendment isnt. That should be all the proof you need. But youre indoctrinated stupid like any NAZI Youth is.
Leftist rhetoric consists of beautiful lies concealing ugly truths.
Dimwit, anarchy is about as "right wing" as you can get. Nobody I know has ever advocated anarchy except indoctrinated leftwits of the 1% movement BS, whom actually consider themselves Socialists believe it or not, lol. It was actually quite comical watching a hippie take a shit on a unionized BIG GOVT Police car then blame Glenn Beck...
I guess you dont know what Politics even is. The right didn't want Kensyian economic policy (ask Milton Friedman) but were forced to negotiate with liars on the left to move "Politics" forward. Reagan was called a uniter of the parties, IMO that was never a good thing.
Do you think GW Bush really wanted Part D or No child left behind?? No he was politicking for future Democrat support in Iraq... And the Democrats slapped him in the face with it afterward and laughed. Ted Kennedy, murderer leading the charge with Grand Kleagle of the KKK (Hillary's hero) Robert Byrd right on his heels.
jessica
once again: socialism is the social ownership of the means of production. most socialists reject marx as authoritarian, and historical materialism as teleological. i identify as a libertarian socialist in the tradition of bakunin, kropotkin and malatesta.
there is no american left. i've stated this repeatedly. the democrats and the republicans are almost identical in policy and both represent the extreme right of the corporatist spectrum. obamacare was designed by the heritage institute as a means to maximize profit for shareholders; it is extremely right-wing in scope and implementation.
the vision of the tea party is a society run by large property owners - the bourgeois, the cartels, the bankers, the aristocrats. it is a vision that is not dissimilar from the nazi state. remember: the layer of government is merely a means of oversight for capital.
barack obama is a conservative.
socialism is individualism because it is designed to allow for full positive freedom. markets are collectivism because they enforce the tyranny of supply and demand, converting you into a slave of consensus. you're the one that's brainwashed. i don't have the time or interest in this. you're merely demonstrating my point.
anarchism is in fact a socialist ideology. it broke with marx at the second international in the 1870s, and developed largely from the writings of bakunin. you're confusion is a consequence of your ignorance. please take the time to educate yourself on the history of anarchism as a synonym for "libertarian socialism" before you respond further.
the point i was trying to make about reagan was that the politicking was on the other side of the spectrum. he didn't cut taxes because he thought it would create jobs.
Despiser Despised
You're taking simple concepts adding a bunch of bullshit to them so you can twist it into knots to fit your narrative, just as Marx suggested many times to his useful idiots.
Socialism, in any of its nasty forms has ever worked because of HUMAN NATURE... Capitalism does in fact work and has been proven. What America has now is NOT Capitalism in any way shape or form.
Sure, 0bama is a Conservative, lol. Taking over 1/5th of our economy in the form of Healthcare Insurance is sooo Conservative, lol. Do you listen to yourself at all?.
No amount of education can overcome Liberal stupidity.
jessica
you say that like it's empirical fact. listen: i reject the idea of human nature in favour of a tabula rasa. we're blank slates. are we assholes? mostly. but, we're taught to be assholes.
again: i'm not a marxist. marxism is authoritarian; i'm a libertarian socialist - an anarchist. look up bakunin's attack on marx. it's pretty devastating.
i'm not a liberal, either. you're a liberal.
obamacare is not single payer. it is not a government take over of anything. it's a law that forces you to buy private insurance. that's a market exchange. you should support this.
joe ramone
Holy fuck!!! Your so-called mind is warped. Socialism is where the government CONTROLS AND DISTRIBUTES the means of production. But your warped definition made it seem like the "people" were actually in control of their own companies and calling the shots.
jessica
no. the system where the government controls industry is called crony capitalism. as mentioned, it was developed largely in britain by the conservative party, through the creation of crown corporations (like the east india company, or the hudson's bay company). this was essentially the model that the nazis used in their cartelization of the economy - although one could also draw comparisons to the gilded era in the united states, before the trusts were broken up.
you seem to be implying that the soviet union was a socialist state. this is false. the academic term used to describe the economy of the soviet union is state capitalism.
there is one thing that the right-wingers get right, and it is that the soviets and nazis had essentially the same economic structure. but, the reason for this is that the soviets were capitalist, not that the nazis were communist.
again: the model is toryism. it's not liberalism. it's not market theory. but, it's firmly in the capitalist realm of cronyism & mercantilism.
if you hate the soviets, i agree with you. remember: the soviets slaughtered tens of thousands of leftists in their purges. they stamped out legitimate socialist revolts with inhuman cruelty. but, you're simply misinformed to conflate these things with the left.
Rat Ghost
Uhhh, the US Constitution pretty much prohibits the federal government from "forcing" the American citizen to buy anything. Read the Constitution and please tell me where it says the feds can tell me (or you) what product they want me to buy. It's not really private if the government is forcing you to buy it. It's more like an insidious, ill-conceived partnership between private companies and the federal government which victimizes the US citizen into obtaining something they don't want. I call it fascism. Obamacare is currently not single payer, but it hopes to be that way. The grand idea behind Obamacare was that it would break the health insurance companies financially covering many individuals with preexisting, often catastrophic health conditions.
Once the Insurance companies go broke or bow out of the system -- which is happening now, the government takes health car over from th failed insurance companies because individual health coverage is now law of the land --- Thank you justice Roberts and the SCOTUS. . And then BINGO! Obama and the liberal left/progressive/radicals/Marxists get what they have always dreamed of --- government run health care with the feds controlling your every move, all of your life, cradle to grave.
Where's the "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor" that Obama promised?? Where's the "If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan" that Obama promised?? Where's the " $2,500 per family average yearly health care savings" Obama was promising?? Never happened. It was all bullshit right from the inception.
Obamacare is the worst and most expensive government monstrosity ever forced upon the American people. It was designed to fail. It was all lies from the very beginning and soon we will all be giving up large percentages of our income to pay for it once it becomes so-called "single payer". And Single Payer is really a big lie too because it's not the government paying for it, it's the American people who will be taxed into the poor house to pay for it. The government just "redistributes' it.
jessica
see, i think this is a lot of conspiratorial drivel with essentially no supporting evidence. the supreme court already ruled that it's constitutional because it's a tax, but i agree that this is flawed logic.
think of it like this: the government forces you to buy auto insurance and a slew of other types of insurance. are these all unconstitutional? is the car insurance industry an extension of the government?
the main flaw in your conspiracy theory is intent. why would the insurance companies, who have the democrats in their back pockets, want single payer? they'd lose money. rather, if the insurance industry could design a system themselves, it would look exactly like obamacare. and, guess what: that's the reality. obamacare was written by the insurance industry, then placed into law by bought lobbyists.
if they wanted single payer, they would have just put in single payer. but, the president wouldn't even support the public option.
obamacare was designed to prevent single payer. from it's start in the heritage institute. to it's championing by newt gingrich in the 90s. to it's implementation by mitt romney in massachusettts. to it's implementation, nationally.
worse, the debate on the left has shifted. if you listen to these dipshit democrats talk, they no longer want to fight for single-payer. they want to fight to "save obamacare".
take sanders as an example. he supported single payer. the right-wing, democratic-backed media attacked him for wanting to "repeal obamacare" - which was technically true. but, consistently taken out of context.
this then created a backlash of hillary supporters that thought sanders was a menace to society because he wanted to repeal obamacare. there were rallies to "save obamacare".
this is the new debate: repeal or maintain obamacare. single payer is out of the spectrum. and, the fucking idiots have fallen right in line.
joe ramone
You're just another lefty socialist scumbag who knows everything yet knows nothing.
CRONY Capitalism is a term used when special favors are given to certain business owners/corporations. It has NOTHING to do with the government controlling and distributing the means of production as opposed to the business' owners doing so.
Make sure to get back to me with yet another incorrect definition and example.
Oh shit. You're a sick-in-the-head TRANNY!!! Bwahahahaha. Freaks, like you, should be blackballed from society. Oh wait a second. You already are.
jessica
you're describing a symptom. so, you could consider oil subsidies as a symptom of crony capitalism. but, why do we have these oil subsidies? because the state is operated by capital: bribery, lobbyists, corruption. crony capitalism is consequently the collusion between state and capital.
you could argue the cartels are different because they're outside government, but then you're missing the point. there's a revolving door. there's regulatory capture. there's an oligarchy in the ruling class, and the lines are blurred.
i'm actually being generous in calling this "crony capitalism" and allowing you the delusions of market theory. you can't actually have a "free market". it's utopian claptrap. all capitalism is crony capitalism, is toryism, is mercantilism....
again: the economic system in nazi germany was one where a cartel system of elite bourgeois property owners controlled and operated everything. it was essentially the same system that existed in colonial britain. it had parallels in gilded era america. you can recoil against this characterization of capitalism, if you'd like. but the nazi economy had nothing to do with the abolition of private property, the elimination of the bureaucracy, democratization in production or ensuring justice in distribution.
in fact, they gassed people that wanted that. they rounded socialists, communists and even liberals up and put them in gas chambers. they killed them by the thousands. they had no such persecution directed at conservatives or capitalists.
joe ramone
Fucking TRANNY!!! Bwahahahahaaha. Do your neighborhood, your family and the world a huge favor and hang yourself.
By the way, TRANNY, perhaps you should spend as much effort developing a career as opposed to typing out 5 paragraph replies on youtube that people won't read. Maybe then you wouldn't have to worry about big daddy government holding your limp-wristed TRANNY hand through life. Then again, who the fuck would hire a freak TRANNY, like you.
jessica
this is the guy that's accusing leftists of sounding like nazis. what, you're too fiscally conservative to gas me?
joe ramone
hey TRANNY, why don't you cut and paste my comments were I compared lefties to Nazis. I want to read it. Come on, TRANNY. Let's see it.
jessica
listen: i just don't want to have a career. i'm sorry. it's a quality of life issue. i mean, you only have a certain amount of time to live on this planet. who wants to waste it at work?
joe ramone
Oh and TRANNY, I would kick the shit out of you if I ever had the chance.
jessica
would you wear a brown shirt when you're beating the shit out of me?
joe ramone
Time for my family and myself to go have a nice rib dinner at Carson's. That's one luxury people who earn money can afford. Meanwhile, you'll sit on youtube and do nothing. Enjoy!!!
jessica
well, it's a question of priorities. just remember: while you're wasting your life away as a slave, i'm at home enjoying myself. if you think that's worth a rib dinner from time to time, good for you. i'm not so easily amused.
joe ramone
Hey TRANNY, for laughs I called my wife over and told her to take a look at your youtube profile. Her reaction, "Ewwwwwww. I don't want to look at that thing.".
jessica
well, what do you want? an apology?
at
03:14
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)