Infowars Interviews a Socialist - "You people have worms in your brains."

[alcoholbob]

If you redistribute wealth you disincentivize hard work and innovation. Why would you want to work so hard if you aren't going to be compensated? This hurts consumers because we benefit from new technology and products. You also eventually run out of everybody else's money after the short term boom. See Venezuela.

Socializing health care will increase wait times which reduced the qualify of your care because early intervention is key for al ot of ailments. I can get a same day appointment with kaiser. With the NHS you're waiting two weeks to see your Gp:

http://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/your-pr...eeks-despite-rescue-measures/20034534.article

I think you have a point, 4.5 trillion in redistribution to the top from the federal reserve certainly has created a zombie economy where elites don't have to work to make money.

 

[ivwshane]

Lol dummy he just agreed that in the economic sense, which is the only way to look at an economic system, he agrees.

Of course its not the only way to look at an economic system! If it was, why would you use Nazi Germany as your example as opposed to more modern and universally agreed upon countries that are actually considered socialist? I don't see you bringing up third world countries ran by dictatorships who use capitalism as their economic system, why is that?

All that is besides the point as the girl in the OP wasn't talking about a complete socialist economic makeover and was instead talking about health care. You and your butt buddy decided, like the reporter in the story, to talk about extremes for no other reason than to spout bullshit.

This is why people don't like discussing things with you, because you are a disingenuous piece of shit.

 

[ivwshane]

Well then no country by that extreme definition is Capitalist, Socialist, or Communist. So all terms are effectively useless to describe any economy. That is a dumb position.

No shit! Which is why people laugh at people like you who try and separate the type of government from the type of economic system.

 

[Moonbeam]

Of course its not the only way to look at an economic system! If it was, why would you use Nazi Germany as your example as opposed to more modern and universally agreed upon countries that are actually considered socialist? I don't see you bringing up third world countries ran by dictatorships who use capitalism as their economic system, why is that?

All that is besides the point as the girl in the OP wasn't talking about a complete socialist economic makeover and was instead talking about health care. You and your butt buddy decided, like the reporter in the story, to talk about extremes for no other reason than to spout bullshit.

This is why people don't like discussing things with you, because you are a disingenuous piece of shit.

I don’t think he is. He has a different issue.

 

[realibrad]

Of course its not the only way to look at an economic system! If it was, why would you use Nazi Germany as your example as opposed to more modern and universally agreed upon countries that are actually considered socialist? I don't see you bringing up third world countries ran by dictatorships who use capitalism as their economic system, why is that?

All that is besides the point as the girl in the OP wasn't talking about a complete socialist economic makeover and was instead talking about health care. You and your butt buddy decided, like the reporter in the story, to talk about extremes for no other reason than to spout bullshit.

This is why people don't like discussing things with you, because you are a disingenuous piece of shit.

When a dictator is sufficiently weak, it can absolutely be capitalist. That is only because the dictator does not have the power/resources to take everything. Capitalism and Socialism are economic systems. Somehow, the modern usage of Socialism seems to have changed for you.

I only jumped into the conversation because it seemed that Spy did not understand the person that posted to him. So, I tried to explain his position to say that the Nationalization of the oil industry and the subsequent flows of money to the poor is socialist. Nationalization of the industry is anathema to capitalism. It does not mean a country that is considered capitalist could not do that thing, but, that does not change that the action is in direct conflict to private ownership.

You are free to be enraged. Does not change facts though.

 

[realibrad]

I don’t think he is. He has a different issue.

That I have not died an ego death?

 

[realibrad]

I fucking well do know why you're wrong. I simply don't believe that you are worth the effort. Happy now.?

wtf, start here and then head to a good university library.

http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/cap...storicalGermanAccounts/BuchheimScherner06.pdf

So, that was a long read, but as I suspected, you googled until you found a paper that said there was private ownership and posted it. Had you read it like I did, you would have found that it did not say that the economy was not Socialist. What the paper did say was that a surprising amount of the economic activity was "private". There were multiple reasons for this, but, it also made it clear that there was an implicit rule that economic activity put the state and its war efforts first. So, if a company was not devoting enough of its activity to the war effort, it would be investigated and even possibly nationalized. Nationalizing a firm during war time is not a great idea as there are inefficiencies when doing that.

So, had you gone through this paper, you would have found this.

This question obviously has something to do with the problem of how to interpret the relationship between state and industry during the Third Reich. The debate about that problem dates back to the beginning of the National Socialist dictatorship itself. Today many historians think that the Nazi state played a primary role, largely depriving companies of the opportunity to make autonomous decisions

So, now that you have posted your link, are you going to explain your position and your understanding, or will you again get pissy and express your anger but not your ideas and or thoughts?

 

[realibrad]

No shit! Which is why people laugh at people like you who try and separate the type of government from the type of economic system.

The government controls and enforces the type of economic structure, but we have different terms for how governments are organized. Do you not know that? Is that the confusion here, is that people think Socialism, Communism, and Capitalism are ways to describe governments?

 

[zinfamous]

By your logic then there should be an inverse relationship between per capita income and the percentage of GDP consumed by government. The opposite is true. How do you explain this?



Attempting to compare the US to Venezuela indicates to me you don't have a strong grasp of this issue.



Yet it is undeniable that every socialized system in a developed country outperforms our system. They overall have similar results for a fraction of the cost.

Not true. Infant mortality rates and post-natal care in socialized, European systems are vastly superior to what they are in the US. US infant mortality rates today hover with the rates found in the 3rd world, and approach rates not seen since the Paleolithic era.

 

[zinfamous]

I don't believe in condemning or heralding people by what group they identify as, but instead judge them by their individual merits.

Someone did once tell me that some Nazis are very find people, so you must be right about that.

 

[realibrad]

Not true. Infant mortality rates and post-natal care in socialized, European systems are vastly superior to what they are in the US. US infant mortality rates today hover with the rates found in the 3rd world, and approach rates not seen since the Paleolithic era.

You are out of your fucking mind if you think US infant mortality rates are anywhere near the paleolithic era. Where would you get such a wrong idea from? The EU has much much better rates, so that is right, and a large part of that is due to socialized care, but the 2nd part, wtf?

 

[ivwshane]

The government controls and enforces the type of economic structure, but we have different terms for how governments are organized. Do you not know that? Is that the confusion here, is that people think Socialism, Communism, and Capitalism are ways to describe governments?

Here is you------->

.<-----Here is the point. You missed it.

 

[realibrad]

Here is you------->

.<-----Here is the point. You missed it.

And your explanation is here --->

 

[zinfamous]

Authoritarianism is on the left. The further you go to the right the less government thus less authoritarianism. It's popular to say that the Nazi's and Italians were far right dictatorships, but they have way more in common with the far left. The National Socialist Workers Party. Mussolini was a socialist.

I don't think you would be able to pass a 3rd grade civics class with that glaringly sophomoric understanding of historic political and social movements.

I mean, I guess if you can just reinvent well-defined and established terms on your own, to make you and only yourself happy in your ignorance, then whatever. Just don't expect anyone else to take you seriously.

 

[realibrad]

I don't think you would be able to pass a 3rd grade civics class with that glaringly sophomoric understanding of historic political and social movements.

I mean, I guess if you can just reinvent well-defined and established terms on your own, to make you and only yourself happy in your ignorance, then whatever. Just don't expect anyone else to take you seriously.

@tygeezy

I missed that comment by him. Its a misunderstanding that authoritarianism is something that is either left or right. Historically, its been something that is dominated by the Right, but, its not exclusive to the Right.

 

[zinfamous]

You are out of your fucking mind if you think US infant mortality rates are anywhere near the paleolithic era. Where would you get such a wrong idea from? The EU has much much better rates, so that is right, and a large part of that is due to socialized care, but the 2nd part, wtf?

I said "approaching."

 

[Victorian Gray]

So, that was a long read, but as I suspected, you googled until you found a paper that said there was private ownership and posted it. Had you read it like I did, you would have found that it did not say that the economy was not Socialist. What the paper did say was that a surprising amount of the economic activity was "private". There were multiple reasons for this, but, it also made it clear that there was an implicit rule that economic activity put the state and its war efforts first. So, if a company was not devoting enough of its activity to the war effort, it would be investigated and even possibly nationalized. Nationalizing a firm during war time is not a great idea as there are inefficiencies when doing that.

So, had you gone through this paper, you would have found this.



So, now that you have posted your link, are you going to explain your position and your understanding, or will you again get pissy and express your anger but not your ideas and or thoughts?

Dude, you're quite simply not worth the effort. I repeat my suggestion, head to the nearest university and talk to both a good reference librarian and a prof or two in the history department. Our conversation here is finished.

 

[realibrad]

I said "approaching."

But come on. You are talking about something like 20-30% infant mortality rate back then, vs 6.5 per 10,000 today. Joking aside, its very different and detracts from your point which I think is a valid one. The US system has some massive shortfalls when it comes to things like infant mortality. Saying its approaching 20-30% when its currently .065% is complete BS. Don't pick up the tactics of the other side.

 

[realibrad]

Dude, you're quite simply not worth the effort. I repeat my suggestion, head to the nearest university and talk to both a good reference librarian and a prof or two in the history department. Our conversation here is finished.

How is it every time you disagree with me, you have the stance of finding me worthy of saying I'm wrong, responding to me over and over, but never enough time to explain how?

You are averaging something like 11 posts per day every day for 5 years, and yet you wont explain how my position is wrong. I'm worthy enough to talk to, just not worthy enough to have your position explained. Amazing how that works.

Or..... its that you have a position that you feel is emotionally is right, but no way of explaining how its right beyond getting angry. I can explain myself, and have done so. If you feel any part of my logic is flawed, then you can explain and I will either admit that I was wrong, or explain why I still think you are wrong. I have admitted many times on this very forum how and when I have been wrong.

So what do you say, are you willing to take the time to explain your position and how its mutually exclusive to mine, or will you take your ball and go home because things are hard?

 

[Victorian Gray]

How is it every time you disagree with me, you have the stance of finding me worthy of saying I'm wrong, responding to me over and over, but never enough time to explain how?

You are averaging something like 11 posts per day every day for 5 years, and yet you wont explain how my position is wrong. I'm worthy enough to talk to, just not worthy enough to have your position explained. Amazing how that works.

Or..... its that you have a position that you feel is emotionally is right, but no way of explaining how its right beyond getting angry. I can explain myself, and have done so. If you feel any part of my logic is flawed, then you can explain and I will either admit that I was wrong, or explain why I still think you are wrong. I have admitted many times on this very forum how and when I have been wrong.

So what do you say, are you willing to take the time to explain your position and how its mutually exclusive to mine, or will you take your ball and go home because things are hard?

Nothing to do with anger. Dude, you, as an individual on this forum are, in my opinion, simply not worth my effort.

The 'Nazis are socialists' is an old argument that the world has been hearing for decades. It's bullshit and it's dangerous but someone else can try and explain that as I'm bored and I simply don't have the patience for it.

Again. university, good librarian, talk to a couple of profs in the History dept. It will be a real eye-opener I'm sure.

 

[Amused]

Nothing to do with anger. Dude, you, as an individual on this forum are, in my opinion, simply not worth my effort.

The 'Nazis are socialists' is an old argument that the world has been hearing for decades. It's bullshit and it's dangerous but someone else can try and explain that as I'm bored and I simply don't have the patience for it.

Again. university, good librarian, talk to a couple of profs in the History dept. It will be a real eye-opener I'm sure.

I posted multiple links myself explaining this old myth and why it's laughably wrong.

You can lead a man to knowledge, but you can't make him think.

He wan't it to be one way, and no amount of factual information will change that in his mind.

 

[brycejones]

gish galloping must be occurring

Is realibrad at it again?

 

[realibrad]

Nothing to do with anger. Dude, you, as an individual on this forum are, in my opinion, simply not worth my effort.

The 'Nazis are socialists' is an old argument that the world has been hearing for decades. It's bullshit and it's dangerous but someone else can try and explain that as I'm bored and I simply don't have the patience for it.

Again. university, good librarian, talk to a couple of profs in the History dept. It will be a real eye-opener I'm sure.

Again, how is it I am not worth the effort, but worthy enough for you to respond to me? Seems strange.

The Nazis had a socialist economy. Hitler supported huge social projects, instituted national services, and prohibited farmers from selling their land.

Now, if you want to argue that Hitler and the Nazis used the state to accomplish their goals, that is true, but it does not mean they did not have a socialist economy. I do not disagree that the goal of the Nazis was first and foremost about gaining power. Its just that Capitalism and even Communism is ultimately mutually exclusive to that. Capitalism means the state could not own things that the Nazis wanted to own, and Communism would mean the people owned everything and again, that goes counter to what the Nazis wanted. But, to say that the Nazis were not socialists is flat out wrong.

Feel free to explain why, but, like I said before, you will lash out or do something other than explain how I am wrong.

 

[Victorian Gray]

I posted multiple links myself explaining this old myth and why it's laughably wrong.

You can lead a man to knowledge, but you can't make him think.

He wan't it to be one way, and no amount of factual information will change that in his mind.

Well, I'm sure that there must be a university with library and history department somewhere near that he can visit if he truly wants some answers.

On a side note, this made me dig out some old boxes of papers and I ended up reading a bunch of stuff from my old historiography courses on the war and the nazis. They weren't in my area of specialization but were damned interesting and some of the best courses I had the good luck to get in to.

 

[realibrad]

I posted multiple links myself explaining this old myth and why it's laughably wrong.

You can lead a man to knowledge, but you can't make him think.

He wan't it to be one way, and no amount of factual information will change that in his mind.

Did you explain how it was wrong, or just post links? My bet is that like VG you have no real understanding of what those links said, other than the title.