Vote to comment and see the results
avatar
50 Comments
  • Filter by:
  • Agree
  • Unsure
  • Disagree
  • 2 years ago

    No.

    Watch The Big Short. It was unregulated capitalism that lead to the last Recession, and it caused the Depression we had in the 1920s as well. America has never gone full Socialist, but we are at our strongest economics wise at a time when we had Capitalism that was tightly regulated. Of course, to the Fundamentalist regulated capitalism is the same as socialism, but as people like Al Qaeda and the Nazis have shown Fundamentlaists are not people you should be using as inspiration for major policy.

    • 2 years ago

      @arkle You assume in your comments that I am a fundamentalist and it is quite demeaning to equate my character and beliefs to that of the Nazis and Al Qaeda. I reject your demeaning statements and dismiss you from commenting any further here or it warrants a harassment charge. If you cannot intellectually challenge my arguments you are least qualified to critique my debate. Your hateful, illogical, unreasonable, ad hominem attacks, and rhetoric are unwelcome because it is clear your not critically thinking and haven't done your research on what the Nazis implemented as public policy. And you mention Al Qaeda seriously. Al Qaeda is a government that implemented policies in your opinion it's logical to assume this for you place Nazi's in same context. Long story short others can tolerate it but I won't. I will call you out on it cause I don't welcome that tactic here. It sounds you are more emotional than logical and it makes no sense reasoning with someone like you cause facts don't obviously matter over your feelings. You either come right or don't input at all. I broke up conversations and all dialogue with schoolmates in college because of emotionally charged irrationality there was no reasoning with them and i'm happy to break you off from ever commenting on my debates again. So examine yourself and your comments, so that you don't make a fool of yourself on this platform. 78 viewers and counting are witness to this comment I just posted.

      Don't say you weren't warned.

    • 2 years ago

      @bashee7 "I reject your demeaning statements and dismiss you from commenting any further here or it warrants a harassment charge."

      You'd need to take that up with the people who run this site. But I'm pretty sure that what I said doesn't fall into that category seeing as I was;

      1) talking about extreme capitalists broadly, not just you specifically.
      2) Have only replied to this thread ONCE.
      and 3) All I did was say you were wrong and make a (very) brief commentary on the hisotry of American economics.

      "If you cannot intellectually challenge my arguments you are least qualified to critique my debate."

      Someone who baselessly accuses other people of harassment has some nerve accusing others of being unqualified to debate.

      "Your hateful, illogical ad hominem attacks, and rhetoric are unwelcome."

      Saying you're wrong isn't hate speech, hyperbole isn't ad hominem, and snark is not rhetoric. Do you know what any of the words you are using mean, or did you just see them somewhere and thought using them would make you sound smart?

      "Others can tolerate it but I won't. I will call you out on it cause I don't welcome that tactic here."

      What tactic? I mean, apart from the one you flat out lied and said I engaged in when anyone with eyes and basic reading comprehension can look at my post and see I did no such thing. You are a liar. This is demonstrable fact.

      "You either come right or don't input at all."

      Near as I can tell, this means you want me to agree with you, or you'll try to get in trouble with the moderators. Yeah, good luck with that. They may not be my biggest fans, but I've known at least one of them since this site was fairly new. That kind of hurts your chances of "playing the ref" here.

    • 2 years ago

      @arkle you strawmanned @bashee7 he called you on it.

    • 2 years ago

      @julian No, I did not. You are as much a liar as he is. Delete your accounts, Both of you.

      Or at the very least, learn what the term "straw man" actually means.

      http://www.skepticink.com/notung/2014/09/27/the-use-and-misuse-of-straw-men-in-argumentation/

      If you can't tell the difference betwen straw man and generalization, then you do not belong on a debate site, as to "debating" probably means "yell at your opponent until they get tired, and then claim you won based on the facts."

      And before you respond to that comment, let me remind you that I have been arguing with Cosnervatives on-line for over 20 years. The people who believe in that ideology have not gotten any smarter in that time. In fact, they've gotten dumber. And meaner.

    • 2 years ago

      @arkle an over generalization is a straw man. Its actually a form of red herring. By talking about nazis and extremist you are leading to false conclusion the statement is false. See the link at the bottom,

      I'm not consearvative. I think you need to hear it if you want to be a better debater. I actually liked a couple of your debates. Change your style man!

      http://www.fallacyfiles.org/taxonomy.html

    • 2 years ago

      @arkle and I tore a consearvative on this just about a week ago on FB, so I know what you mean. Not the case here!

    • 2 years ago

      @julian "an over generalization is a straw man. Its actually a form of red herring."

      You just conflated three seperated things. And yet you think you're probably smart for doing so. Sad.

      "By talking about nazis and extremist you are leading to false conclusion the statement is false. "

      Maybe try responding to what I actually said instead of the version of that you ran through your Right Wing Nut Job decoder ring. I was tlaking about extremists and how we shouldn't listen to them. You took this as a personal attack on the OP. This means one of two things; you are very stupid and think this is true, or you know it's not true but you know you can't win based on the merits. So, which is it? Are you a liar, or a fool?

      "Change your style man!"

      You want me to stop calling out BS where I see it? That's ridiculous. Go crawl back under whatever rock you came from.

    • 2 years ago

      @julian Or let me put it this way. Point to the exact moment in my original comment where I said bashee was the Extremist. You have to use ACTUAL WORDS from the post. As in Copy-n-Paste.

      You can't, beucase it doesn't exist, but I'm sure you'll find a way to take me out of context to make yoruself be right. If the facts are square and the hole is round, take sandpaper to the facts.

    • 2 years ago

      @arkle come on! Youre attacking me without explaining the reasoning... how could anyone see a good argument in that? If I missed something just say so. Stop assuming things.

    • 2 years ago

      @julian "come on! Youre attacking me without explaining the reasoning... "

      Another lie. A pathetic one at that. I explained exactly why I was attacking you; because you were saying things thnat were untrue. I was not subtle about this.

      "If I missed something just say so."

      I did. And your response was to act as though it didn't happen.

      "Stop assuming things."

      Yes, how dare I judge you by the things you actually say. *eyeroll followed by the jerk-off motion*

    • 2 years ago

      @arkle You don't have to call him a extremeist. It's a red herring. Again, just reaffirm what I missed?

    • 2 years ago

      @bashee7 value our difference and do not talk to each other this way. I don't blame him...

    • 2 years ago

      @julian "Again, just reaffirm what I missed?"

      School, apparently.

      "You don't have to call him a extremeist. It's a red herring."

      I know what the individual words mean, but this sentence makes no sense.

      And of course yet again, you dodged my question; where in my original post did I call HIM an extremist, specifically. You, of course, don't have a response to that. Because it doesn't exist you pathetic little liar.

      This is what I wrote, the thing that you are apparently too goddamned stupid to read properly.

      "Of course, to the Fundamentalist regulated capitalism is the same as socialism, but as people like Al Qaeda and the Nazis have shown Fundamentlaists are not people you should be using as inspiration for major policy."

      I see now where you got confused. You appare ntly have never heard of the "royal you." So when I used the word you, you were so blinded by your own unearned sense of superiority that you completely divorced it from its context.

      Let me help you. You won't read this since it will destory your narrative, but I'll elave it for others who are capable of learning. http://www.wordwizard.com/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?t=6811

    • 2 years ago

      @arkle I've explained all of what you're saying already. The ad hominem and personal attacks do not help you and are not called for. I don't have time for this.

    • 2 years ago

      @julian 'I've explained all of what you're saying already."

      No, you lied. You. Lied. Lied. You are a liar. There is a reason that none of your claims about my initial post contains any quotes from that post. Because you. Are. A. Liar.

      "The ad hominem and personal attacks do not help you and are not called for."

      But lying repeatedly helps you? Gimme a break.

      "I don't have time for this."

      If by this you mean being honest, that much was already obvious.

    • 2 years ago

      @arkle h2h in one hour?

    • 2 years ago

      @julian No. I don't do H2H's with people I don't trust to be honest. On top of that, I haven't had a chance to see if the video would work on my late father's laptop that I inherited. The site's founder can confirm that for some unknown reason H2H's just don't work on the computer I use at home. My previous H2H's were all done on my Mom & Step-Father's laptop at their house. Which in large part is why my first 3 were with people I already knew.

      Or as the Al-Right people on this site call it, "I don't do it becuase I'm a coward." *eyeroll*

      tl;dr. No, for two good reasons. See above for details.

    • 2 years ago

      @arkle you called me all of those names but can't talk to me? If I'm lying it should easy right?

    • 2 years ago

      Do you skype?

    • 2 years ago

      @julian "you called me all of those names but can't talk to me?"

      Not can't, won't. Because of the reasons I said. Assuming you bothered to read them.

      "If I'm lying it should easy right?"

      No. Becasue you have shown that no matter how often your lies are pointed out to you, yhou won't stop. So an H2H with you would be a complete waste of my time. Time that could be betetr spent on literally anything. Playing Mass Effect for the 12th time would accomplish more than doing an H2H with your dishonest ass.

    • 2 years ago

      @arkle we can just talk in skype it doesn't have to be on the site or a contest.

    • 2 years ago

      @julian So you can lie to me in private? No thanks.

    • 2 years ago

      @arkle alright man... no worries. Have a good night. Haha

    • 2 years ago

      @arkle just to talk...

    • 2 years ago

      @arkle No.

      Watch The Big Short. It was unregulated capitalism that lead to the last Recession, and it caused the Depression we had in the 1920s as well.

      So by your account the examples I used in the debate of constant regulation by the hoover administration doesn't matter for contention because theirs a movie that's out, that doesn't address my arguments but is a movie with actual visuals more interesting than actually disputing the research and documentation you provided for argumentation.

    • 2 years ago

      @arkle Delete your accounts, Both of you.

      So when your confronted humbly by an objective observer the response is for them to delete their accounts, how appropriate to ask of someone else who simply raises a concern.

    • 2 years ago

      @bashee7 "So when your confronted humbly by an objective observer "

      Objective? Asshole, you accused me of harrasment for saying you were wrong. Shut the entire F up with your fake humility.

    • 2 years ago

      @arkle talking about extreme capitalists broadly, not just you specifically, then you proceed to say people like Al Qaeda and the Nazis have shown Fundamentlaists are not people you should be using as inspiration for major policy.

      So by your account here Nazis and Al Qaeda are names for people not a name of a group and Nazis when translated in German is not "Socialist workers Party" but "Capitalist workers party" ,Alqaeda was a legitimate government that spanned throughout the middle east in small little administrations around the world and the name for the people's they governed over had no identification, but that doesn't matter because Nazis believed in limited government which is why the Nazis didn't respect the privatation of private property and businesses, which is why Alqaeda shouldn't be your influence for public policy. And they aren't don't worry cause they never had economic policies or a legitimate governing body or private enterprises to regulate.

    • 2 years ago

      @arkle Objective? Asshole, you accused me of harrasment for saying you were wrong. Shut the entire F up with your fake humility.

      So you assert name calling is the same as saying someone is wrong and them calling you out on it and declaring harrassment warrants them to shut up, and because they refuse to shut up and continue to engage you they have fake humility. Interesting.

    • 2 years ago

      @bashee7 "So by your account here Nazis and Al Qaeda are names for people not a name of a group and Nazis when translated in German is not "Socialist workers Party" but "Capitalist workers party""

      Sure, the Nazis called themselves Socialist. But they alwso called themselves NAtionalist, and those two ideologies are incompatbable. Also, North Korea calls itself a democratic Republic. Do you take that at face value too? Or are you only hyperliteral when you can score a cheap political point?

      "Alqaeda was a legitimate government that spanned throughout the middle east"

      Um, no it wasn't. It literally was not. This is such a bold faced lie that I don't need to share a link, anyone with even a base understanding of Middle East history could tell that you're lying.

      "but that doesn't matter because Nazis believed in limited government"

      They were fascists, you moldy jizz rag! That is literally the opposite of limited government! You have to be lying. No human could possi bly be as STUPID as you act and still be able to operate a computer. Even a user-friendly one like a Mac would be beyond your intellectual capacity if you were actually dumb enough to believe the garbage you just spewed in that post. That block button that's supposedly in development for this siote cannot come fast enough.

    • 2 years ago

      @bashee7 I made one post where I didn't even swear, and I definitely didn't threaten anyone, and you cried harassment. Either you were lying, or you are so thin-skinned that you could get a paper cut from an iPad.

    • 2 years ago

      @arkle So by your account harassment is limited to just swearing at someone and them, because you didn't do any of those things this gives you a justification to call this person more names like "liar" and "thin skinned", and not only is this a justification to call then more names, but to also demean their humanity hence they would get a paper cut from an ipad. Got it. On that basis if you don't yet sense where you go into low blow territory I don't think there are other ways to make this obvious to you.

    • 2 years ago

      @bashee7 "So by your account harassment is limited to just swearing at someone and them,"

      Nice try, but we both know that's not what I said. I never said what harrasment was, just that me saying you were wrong, and relatively politely (by my standards anyway) just one time in the entire thread is not it. But that's what you claimed it was. So, which is it? Were you lying then, or are you just that thin-skinned? I'm leaning towards "liar" myself.

    • 2 years ago

      @bashee7 concerning your first response to arkle, in no way did he attack you, straw man you, refer to you, use hateful language, use an ad hominem, and his rhetoric was perfectly acceptable.

      Not sure where you got any of that from, but clearly you mis-interpreted a very simple response into something clearly to that which it was not.

      And the rest of your responses were completely out of line.

    • 2 years ago

      @vermontrevolutionary youre defending Arkles behavior on this board shows that havent been here long. And if you dont like my saying that at least say why.

    • 2 years ago

      @julian regardless of how long I've been here, I can read. And bashee7's first response to arkle is completely off the reservation of sane responses to what arkle wrote.

    • 2 years ago

      @vermontrevolutionary Im not defending that. Im saying that my experience Arkle has a history of harassing people. Which he did to me here after I pointed out he was over exaggerating to lead to a false conclusion. I was surprised to see your reaction to my defending myself.

    • 2 years ago

      @vermontrevolutionary if you think Arkle had something good to say just say why.

    • 2 years ago

      And Sebastian and I are frequent opponents if you didnt notice...

    • 2 years ago

      @julian you misunderstand.

      I didn't say anything concerning arkle's comment as good or bad. It has absolutely, not a single thing whatsoever in any capacity on any relevant plane of existence anywhere in any concept of any understanding to good or bad.

      Why are you making it about that when it isn't about that?

      I said that bashee7's response to what Arkle said was completely and utterly off the reservation of sane in terms of responses.

    • 2 years ago

      @vermontrevolutionary im talking about my conversation with Asskle and your reaction. What was that about?

    • 2 years ago

      @julian it's irrelevant. My response is concerning bashee7's response to Arkle. You are now twisting my response to Bashee7 to fit something concerning you. Which it does not, In any way, shape, or form.

    • 2 years ago

      @vermontrevolutionary why did you dislike 10 or so of my comments here?

    • 2 years ago

      @julian because you are defending bashee7's absolutely insane response to arkle using horrific debating skills.

      The whole premise of everything that you said was to go against Arkle, who by the way is the only individual of the three of you with any sane position.

    • 2 years ago

      @vermontrevolutionary the only point I made was that I didnt like Arkles argument. If you think it was sane tell my why. I already explained my position.

    • 2 years ago

      @julian first of all, arkle didn't strawman bashee7. If you believe that, you need to highlight, copy and paste where you believe that occurred. But I'm telling you it didn't.

      Arkle was making a connection between socialism and fundamentalist capitalism and then gave an example of why fundamentalist nature is dangerous, to which bashee inferred as an attack personally on him. Which is absolutely bonkers btw.

      Then you follow up and say he strawmanned bashee which in no way occurred. The whole premise of your argument is non-sensicle.

    • 2 years ago

      @vermontrevolutionary "Fundamentalist regulated capitalism is the same as socialism, but as people like Al Qaeda and the Nazis have shown Fundamentlaists are not people you should be using as inspiration for major policy"

      Okay think I understand your point now. Maybe I misread this a little... I didnt like that he gave an extreme example and linked to Nazis. If he had said in reference to Venezuela directly it would have made more sense. I think I might have to agree here. If I ever miss anything tell me.

    • 2 years ago

      @julian replace "are not people you should be using as inspiration..." and think of it like "are not people anyone should be using as inspiration".

  • 2 years ago

    I would disagree on the American front.

    If anything it was socialist policies that helped drag us out of the Great Depression and ensure relative economic equality all the way until the Reagan Revolution in the 1980s. The Social Security system allows the elderly and disabled to live with some semblance of dignity, Medicare ensures these same groups don't suffer from illness or die as a result of insufficient healthcare coverage, and the short-term programs such as the Works Progress Administration were a tremendous economic safety net that got us through until the war effort in WWII created full employment. It's hard to argue that these programs were *the* reason for success as war is an economic boon and we were still seeing some economic stagnation, but it's very hard to argue they were at fault, especially since there were basically no socialistic programs in the United States until FDR's election in 1932.

    On the Venezuelan front, I definitely wouldn't call myself qualified to comment. However, I will say as a self-professed democratic socialist, that the power struggle in Venezuela is from my standpoint, hardly the result of actual socialism, and certainly not of a more democratic, populist nature like the SSA and Medicare. The Venezuelan crisis is being perpetuated by a sick power-hungry psychopath willing to do anything in his power to control the Venezuelan people, and only uses the Socialist banner to get elected. Nicolas Maduro's actions and policies are much closer to fascism.