What if?

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: JS80
So someone that comes in to power into a semi capitalistic economy and makes it more socialist isn't a socialist? Right? Saving GM is PRESERVING capitalism? How can I debate someone who thinks 2 + 2 = 5?

When GM repays the government (you DO know what a loan is, right?), the government will no longer own GM. It's not like the government is actually making any business decisions. Think of them as simply an investor.

Oh, and take some econ and politics classes. Please. Before you post again.

:laugh: I'm an econ major and I'm in finance. You're the one that should get informed. The GM loans converted to common and the government now owns 70%+ of GM. And yes, they ARE making business decisions.
GM CEO fired by Obama
Barney Frank makes GM delay plant closure in his district

Lastly, the government SHOULD NOT BE AN INVESTOR IN PRIVATE ENTERPRISE. They end up pumping billions into a black hole.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: JS80
So someone that comes in to power into a semi capitalistic economy and makes it more socialist isn't a socialist? Right? Saving GM is PRESERVING capitalism? How can I debate someone who thinks 2 + 2 = 5?

EXACTLY. A person who moves the country further left is not necessarily a socialist any more than a person who moves the country further right is necessarily a fascist. Now if you only read what you wrote you might get it. It's pretty clear you didn't read my first post. I'll try again, I'm enjoying you pwn yourself.

You couldn't follow the death penalty issue so let's try abortion.

Person A believes abortion is ALWAYS WRONG and should always be illegal no matter the circumstances. On a Pro-Life scale of 1 to 10 Person A is a 10.

Person B believes abortion should almost always be illegal, but makes exceptions for cases of rape or incest, or if the mother's life is in danger, but ONLY in those circumstances. On a Pro-Life scale of 1 to 10, Person B is an 8.

Let's say Persons A and B live in an imaginary state whose current law holds abortion to be illegal and banned in every circumstance. If Person B was elected governor, and used his influence to get the state legislature to adopt his position and change the law to allow abortions in case of rape or incest or to save the life of the mother, he has moved the law further towards "1" on our Pro-Life scale, correct? He's moved the law more towards the pro-choice position.

If you think this makes Person B "pro-choice", you have failed again.

To paraphrase your post above:
So someone that comes in to power in a pro-life state and makes it more pro-choice isn't pro-choice? Right?

Exactly.

The problem is not that I think 2+2=5, it's that You Can't Add.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: JS80
So someone that comes in to power into a semi capitalistic economy and makes it more socialist isn't a socialist? Right? Saving GM is PRESERVING capitalism? How can I debate someone who thinks 2 + 2 = 5?

EXACTLY. A person who moves the country further left is not necessarily a socialist any more than a person who moves the country further right is necessarily a fascist. Now if you only read what you wrote you might get it. It's pretty clear you didn't read my first post. I'll try again, I'm enjoying you pwn yourself.

You couldn't follow the death penalty issue so let's try abortion.

Person A believes abortion is ALWAYS WRONG and should always be illegal no matter the circumstances. On a Pro-Life scale of 1 to 10 Person A is a 10.

Person B believes abortion should almost always be illegal, but makes exceptions for cases of rape or incest, or if the mother's life is in danger, but ONLY in those circumstances. On a Pro-Life scale of 1 to 10, Person B is an 8.

Let's say Persons A and B live in an imaginary state whose current law holds abortion to be illegal and banned in every circumstance. If Person B was elected governor, and used his influence to get the state legislature to adopt his position and change the law to allow abortions in case of rape or incest or to save the life of the mother, he has moved the law further towards "1" on our Pro-Life scale, correct? He's moved the law more towards the pro-choice position.

If you think this makes Person B "pro-choice", you have failed again.

To paraphrase your post above:
So someone that comes in to power in a pro-life state and makes it more pro-choice isn't pro-choice? Right?

Exactly.

The problem is not that I think 2+2=5, it's that You Can't Add.

:laugh:
How many companies does Obama need to take control over before he's considered a Socialist? Or can he socialize 99% and leave 1% and you'll still argue he's just "more left" than the other guy because we're still partially capitalistic?

 

[Nik]

Originally posted by: JS80
:laugh:
How many companies does Obama need to take control over before he's considered a Socialist? Or can he socialize 99% and leave 1% and you'll still argue he's just "more left" than the other guy because we're still partially capitalistic?

Has he? No. Until he does, stfu.

Or are you conveniently a politics major too? :roll:

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: JS80
:laugh:
How many companies does Obama need to take control over before he's considered a Socialist? Or can he socialize 99% and leave 1% and you'll still argue he's just "more left" than the other guy because we're still partially capitalistic?

Has he? No. Until he does, stfu.

Or are you conveniently a politics major too? :roll:

I was Econ + Poli Sci had to drop Poli Sci because the facist leftist professors didn't like my correct opinions.

So you are going to wait until he does? Is it so wrong people are raising a red flag after 1, 2, 3? What's the appropriate #? Or will you wake up one day and be like oh shit now that he has, I should stop stfu now and speak up.

 

[Nik]

Of course you were. How convenient :roll:

You can point fingers all you like, it doesn't make a bit of difference. You can scream socialism all you want, but it doesn't make it true. Just makes you look stupid.

Your next post: "blahhhh blah blah blaaaaaaaah!! BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH!!!"

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: JS80
:laugh:
How many companies does Obama need to take control over before he's considered a Socialist? Or can he socialize 99% and leave 1% and you'll still argue he's just "more left" than the other guy because we're still partially capitalistic?

Well right now the gov't has a controlling interest in....4? (companies that were about to go under) I think there's a few hundred thousand more to go. You just don't seem to get the sliding scale thing, do ya? Ah well.

Do you believe there should be an exception for abortion in cases where a father rapes and impregnates his 10 year old daughter? Or where a 5 month pregnant woman is told by 3 separate doctors that her pregnancy if allowed to progress to term will certainly kill her? How many exceptions do you have to believe in before we get to call you a pro-choice babykiller?

 

[So]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: JS80
:laugh:
How many companies does Obama need to take control over before he's considered a Socialist? Or can he socialize 99% and leave 1% and you'll still argue he's just "more left" than the other guy because we're still partially capitalistic?

Well right now the gov't has a controlling interest in....4? (companies that were about to go under) I think there's a few hundred thousand more to go. You just don't seem to get the sliding scale thing, do ya? Ah well.

Do you believe there should be an exception for abortion in cases where a father rapes and impregnates his 10 year old daughter? Or where a 5 month pregnant woman is told by 3 separate doctors that her pregnancy if allowed to progress to term will certainly kill her? How many exceptions do you have to believe in before we get to call you a pro-choice babykiller?

How many manufacturing sectors must be under government control before it's socialism?

But you're right, the privatizing of profits and collectivization of risks actually isn't socialism. It's fascism.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: JS80
So someone that comes in to power into a semi capitalistic economy and makes it more socialist isn't a socialist? Right? Saving GM is PRESERVING capitalism? How can I debate someone who thinks 2 + 2 = 5?

EXACTLY. A person who moves the country further left is not necessarily a socialist any more than a person who moves the country further right is necessarily a fascist. Now if you only read what you wrote you might get it. It's pretty clear you didn't read my first post. I'll try again, I'm enjoying you pwn yourself.

I just want to make sure you know that all your effort here is pointless. If you're enjoying yourself, do feel free to continue, just know that the horse isn't going to get any more dead.

 

[Nik]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: JS80
:laugh:
How many companies does Obama need to take control over before he's considered a Socialist? Or can he socialize 99% and leave 1% and you'll still argue he's just "more left" than the other guy because we're still partially capitalistic?

Well right now the gov't has a controlling interest in....4? (companies that were about to go under) I think there's a few hundred thousand more to go. You just don't seem to get the sliding scale thing, do ya? Ah well.

Do you believe there should be an exception for abortion in cases where a father rapes and impregnates his 10 year old daughter? Or where a 5 month pregnant woman is told by 3 separate doctors that her pregnancy if allowed to progress to term will certainly kill her? How many exceptions do you have to believe in before we get to call you a pro-choice babykiller?

How many manufacturing sectors must be under government control before it's socialism?

But you're right, the privatizing of profits and collectivization of risks actually isn't socialism. It's fascism.

The world isn't black and white. Let's say there's 100,000 more companies to go (which is a significant understatement). The government owns 1/250,000 businesses. That's 0.00004%.

For a finance major, FS80 isn't really that bright.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: JS80
:laugh:
How many companies does Obama need to take control over before he's considered a Socialist? Or can he socialize 99% and leave 1% and you'll still argue he's just "more left" than the other guy because we're still partially capitalistic?

Well right now the gov't has a controlling interest in....4? (companies that were about to go under) I think there's a few hundred thousand more to go. You just don't seem to get the sliding scale thing, do ya? Ah well.

Do you believe there should be an exception for abortion in cases where a father rapes and impregnates his 10 year old daughter? Or where a 5 month pregnant woman is told by 3 separate doctors that her pregnancy if allowed to progress to term will certainly kill her? How many exceptions do you have to believe in before we get to call you a pro-choice babykiller?

How many manufacturing sectors must be under government control before it's socialism?

But you're right, the privatizing of profits and collectivization of risks actually isn't socialism. It's fascism.

Whoa, GM was making a profit? 😛

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: JS80
So someone that comes in to power into a semi capitalistic economy and makes it more socialist isn't a socialist? Right? Saving GM is PRESERVING capitalism? How can I debate someone who thinks 2 + 2 = 5?

EXACTLY. A person who moves the country further left is not necessarily a socialist any more than a person who moves the country further right is necessarily a fascist. Now if you only read what you wrote you might get it. It's pretty clear you didn't read my first post. I'll try again, I'm enjoying you pwn yourself.

I just want to make sure you know that all your effort here is pointless. If you're enjoying yourself, do feel free to continue, just know that the horse isn't going to get any more dead.

hehe, of course I know this, his MO is unforgettable (see http://forums.anandtech.com/me...id=52&threadid=2224241 - read the last page of the thread for some lulz), I just want the record to be clear. occupational hazard.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: JS80
:laugh:
How many companies does Obama need to take control over before he's considered a Socialist? Or can he socialize 99% and leave 1% and you'll still argue he's just "more left" than the other guy because we're still partially capitalistic?

Well right now the gov't has a controlling interest in....4? (companies that were about to go under) I think there's a few hundred thousand more to go. You just don't seem to get the sliding scale thing, do ya? Ah well.

Do you believe there should be an exception for abortion in cases where a father rapes and impregnates his 10 year old daughter? Or where a 5 month pregnant woman is told by 3 separate doctors that her pregnancy if allowed to progress to term will certainly kill her? How many exceptions do you have to believe in before we get to call you a pro-choice babykiller?

How many manufacturing sectors must be under government control before it's socialism?

But you're right, the privatizing of profits and collectivization of risks actually isn't socialism. It's fascism.

The world isn't black and white. Let's say there's 100,000 more companies to go (which is a significant understatement). The government owns 1/250,000 businesses. That's 0.00004%.

For a finance major, FS80 isn't really that bright.

Who cares how many? You're acting as if bailing out General Motors is interchangeable economically with bailing out the neighborhood taco stand. When any company big enough to make CNN is in danger of having to close because of poor decisions, the government has dictated that the public is going to pay for their greed and incompetence.

Aren't you the same people who are mad that you're paying for the health care of people who make bad decisions (smokers, fat people, extreme sports enthusiasts)?

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: JS80
:laugh:
How many companies does Obama need to take control over before he's considered a Socialist? Or can he socialize 99% and leave 1% and you'll still argue he's just "more left" than the other guy because we're still partially capitalistic?

Well right now the gov't has a controlling interest in....4? (companies that were about to go under) I think there's a few hundred thousand more to go. You just don't seem to get the sliding scale thing, do ya? Ah well.

Do you believe there should be an exception for abortion in cases where a father rapes and impregnates his 10 year old daughter? Or where a 5 month pregnant woman is told by 3 separate doctors that her pregnancy if allowed to progress to term will certainly kill her? How many exceptions do you have to believe in before we get to call you a pro-choice babykiller?

How many manufacturing sectors must be under government control before it's socialism?

But you're right, the privatizing of profits and collectivization of risks actually isn't socialism. It's fascism.

The world isn't black and white. Let's say there's 100,000 more companies to go (which is a significant understatement). The government owns 1/250,000 businesses. That's 0.00004%.

For a finance major, FS80 isn't really that bright.

The world is black, white, and gray. People like you only see gray.

Like I said, how many more companies does government need to own before you consider him socialist?

For an internet bully, Dik isn't really that bright.

 

[zerocool1]

Originally posted by: nkgreen
LOL!

Wir müssen die uhh....uhhh....scheiße.

you're missing a verb. müssen is not a verb in the pure sense. it is a modal verb.

Originally posted by: edtsui
I imagined it'd be somewhat similar to Napoleon's legacy.

 

[Nik]

Originally posted by: JS80
The world is black, white, and gray. People like you only see gray.

Like I said, how many more companies does government need to own before you consider him socialist?

For an internet bully, Dik isn't really that bright.

The IRS is a private organization working exclusively for the government.

You weren't bitching until Obama hit office. Why haven't you been bitching since the inception of the IRS?

Because you're a dumbass troll and nothing more.

Your opinion is decidedly non-factor. Crawl back under your rock.

The government has accidentally killed innocent people in the middle east in the past 10 years, but it hasn't been many. Even so, we should send the whole of the US government and anyone else involved to the electric chair, then? :roll:

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: JS80
:laugh:
How many companies does Obama need to take control over before he's considered a Socialist? Or can he socialize 99% and leave 1% and you'll still argue he's just "more left" than the other guy because we're still partially capitalistic?

Well right now the gov't has a controlling interest in....4? (companies that were about to go under) I think there's a few hundred thousand more to go. You just don't seem to get the sliding scale thing, do ya? Ah well.

Do you believe there should be an exception for abortion in cases where a father rapes and impregnates his 10 year old daughter? Or where a 5 month pregnant woman is told by 3 separate doctors that her pregnancy if allowed to progress to term will certainly kill her? How many exceptions do you have to believe in before we get to call you a pro-choice babykiller?

How many manufacturing sectors must be under government control before it's socialism?

But you're right, the privatizing of profits and collectivization of risks actually isn't socialism. It's fascism.

The world isn't black and white. Let's say there's 100,000 more companies to go (which is a significant understatement). The government owns 1/250,000 businesses. That's 0.00004%.

For a finance major, FS80 isn't really that bright.

Who cares how many?

Well, I think most people do, since it's you know, relevant. Because if numbers don't matter, then Bush was a socialist for bailing out Fannie & Freddie. Or is the required number for socialism anything >1?

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: JS80
The world is black, white, and gray. People like you only see gray.

Like I said, how many more companies does government need to own before you consider him socialist?

For an internet bully, Dik isn't really that bright.

Sweet, the "people like you" paintbrush is out again! :laugh:
How many more companies has the government expressed interest in owning, BTW? Do they have a shopping list or anything?

 

[So]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: JS80
:laugh:
How many companies does Obama need to take control over before he's considered a Socialist? Or can he socialize 99% and leave 1% and you'll still argue he's just "more left" than the other guy because we're still partially capitalistic?

Well right now the gov't has a controlling interest in....4? (companies that were about to go under) I think there's a few hundred thousand more to go. You just don't seem to get the sliding scale thing, do ya? Ah well.

Do you believe there should be an exception for abortion in cases where a father rapes and impregnates his 10 year old daughter? Or where a 5 month pregnant woman is told by 3 separate doctors that her pregnancy if allowed to progress to term will certainly kill her? How many exceptions do you have to believe in before we get to call you a pro-choice babykiller?

How many manufacturing sectors must be under government control before it's socialism?

But you're right, the privatizing of profits and collectivization of risks actually isn't socialism. It's fascism.

The world isn't black and white. Let's say there's 100,000 more companies to go (which is a significant understatement). The government owns 1/250,000 businesses. That's 0.00004%.

For a finance major, FS80 isn't really that bright.

Who cares how many?

Well, I think most people do, since it's you know, relevant. Because if numbers don't matter, then Bush was a socialist for bailing out Fannie & Freddie. Or is the required number for socialism anything >1?

Who cares how many. How MUCH matters. And yes, bush was a socialist for bailing out Fannie and Freddie.

 

[Nik]

Originally posted by: So
Who cares how many. How MUCH matters. And yes, bush was a socialist for bailing out Fannie and Freddie.

So if one single policy decision is enough to change his entire political classification, what do all his other policy choices make him? I guess he (and every other freaking president EVER) were ALL possible -isms on earth.

Really, people. Get a grip.

 

[RedArmy]

If this doesn't fall under P&N than I don't know what does.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: So
Who cares how many. How MUCH matters. And yes, bush was a socialist for bailing out Fannie and Freddie.

Oy. So of 1000 decisions, one more socialist than capitalist, so he's a socialist. No wonder the right is in tatters these days, it can't even recognize it's own. nosce te ipsum

 

[So]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: So
Who cares how many. How MUCH matters. And yes, bush was a socialist for bailing out Fannie and Freddie.

Oy. So of 1000 decisions, one more socialist than capitalist, so he's a socialist. No wonder the right is in tatters these days, it can't even recognize it's own. nosce te ipsum

:roll:

In that decision, he was being a socialist.

Calm down, stretch a bit, and carefully dislodge the stick from your butt.

 

[sandorski]

If Obama is hellbent on Socialism, then why isn't Ford been taken over? Answer: Because he isn't. All the companies under Government control were going to fail. Obama/Bush merely have done what Reagan did during the S&L crisis.

 

[tyler811]

Originally posted by: OCguy
What if RoloMather ended up just a stain on his parent's mattress?

The world would be a better place