It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

While You Were Sleeping: Among Democrats 49% Favorable To Socialism

page: 16
24
<< 13  14  15    17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 04:50 PM
link   
I don't think there is a huge problem with socialism as it's defined here on this thread as life in Denmark.




posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 04:50 PM
link   
a reply to: raedar


Lol, well I can't say this is surprising, although I'm not sure what you mean by "totally receptive".

I checked your source, and was ready to concede if, in fact, the "meme" was totally inaccurate propaganda.

Which was what YOU intended to post.

I went to snopes, and read the article THAT YOU LINKED - so that I would be better informed. In case your link proved me bamboozled after all, I was ready to say, "oops! You're right! hahaha me!"

but - as it turned out, your mockery was, well, unfounded. Premature, false by omission, and totally lame.

And you know it.



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 04:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: raedar

You cited one article from one source, in part, that seemed to support your claim that the "meme" that BuzzyWigs posted was FALSE.

Your absolutist claim, in itself, is proven to be FALSE by the same source you quoted ... as shown by BuzzyWigs quotes from subsequent paragraphs in the SAME article.

EDIT: What you are calling a "meme" is really just an impression; people post them for all kinds of reasons. Do you source each and everyone to attempt to prove or disprove the comment each contains? Sometimes they're intended humorously, sometimes sarcastically, etc.

No one source is 100% correct or incorrect. Other sources can prove or disprove all or part of any other source. What's your point?

My point is, Raedar, that the Snopes.com article that you posted DISPROVES your contention. Are you just not getting that?


What I'm calling a meme is actually a meme.
meme
mēm/Submit
noun
an element of a culture or system of behavior that may be considered to be passed from one individual to another by nongenetic means, especially imitation.
a humorous image, video, piece of text, etc. that is copied (often with slight variations) and spread rapidly by Internet users.


I just provided a list of links for you, as the article was well-sourced. Do you just not get that?

What contention? What do you think you know about me? I have not given my opinion.



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 04:57 PM
link   
a reply to: raedar

LOL ... maybe you need a nap.

I'll say this as basically as I can and I'm done with you:

The article you posted from Snopes.com does not prove the humorous meme that BuzzyWigs posted to be false as you are repeatedly and mistakenly claiming.

Enjoy your errant blithering.



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 05:03 PM
link   
a reply to: raedar


I just provided a list of links for you, as the article was well-sourced. Do you just not get that?

What contention? What do you think you know about me? I have not given my opinion.

Dude.

We ALL know what a "meme" is in terms of posting images on ATS. It's not the same as the scholarly "meme" that also means "popular term describing a mindset".

Yes, it was a "meme." An image, with a message.

You HAVE given your opinion insofar as you have attempted to post 'negating' information related to said "Meme", somehow proving it was false.

So - your opinion is that the "meme" is absolutely false, LOLworthy nonsense.

Which opinion you then tried to "justify" (shore up) by posting PART of the very snopes reference you linked, and conveniently leaving out the part that rebutted your "opinion" (and claim).


You chose the 'context' to include....but left out very important further comments on the same article. If you'd taken more time to "research" the "meme's" accuracy, you might not have jumped the gun and embarrassed yourself....but - you didn't. You grabbed the very first "quote" you could find that made it LOOK like something other than what it was (partly true).

Are you a preacher, by any chance?


Go back to school, dude.



edit on 10/27/2015 by BuzzyWigs because: spelling



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 05:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

It is a mixture of true and false, but if that makes it true to you guys



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 05:10 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I posted the portion of the article pointing out facts negating the meme and later linked the sources for the info they used to negate the claims.




posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 05:11 PM
link   
a reply to: raedar

Here you go:

What another PAGE from your same oecd site says about quality of life in Denmark

Make of it what you will, post whatever you want from it. But don't continue with the premise that you aren't cherry picking. Don't leave anything important out. I'll call you on it.


edit on 10/27/2015 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 05:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: raedar
a reply to: Gryphon66

It is a mixture of true and false, but if that makes it true to you guys


WAAAIIT ... now it's a "mixture of true and false"???

It was conclusively, absolutely, incontravertably false a minute ago according to you!

What happened, did you actually finally read the rest of the article???

LOL



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 05:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I said the information I posted from the article negating the meme was true and well cited. Later I provided the links from that portion.

I posted the information contrary to what was in the meme.

The meme is a mixture of true and false information.

It's like the first thing pointed out on the Snopes link.

I think there's a misunderstanding, and I'm fine with that. I'm not left. I'm not right. I think the entire thing is broken. But when I see unfounded claims that are extreme left or extreme right I usually get fussy.


originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: raedar

Here you go:

What another source says about quality of life in Denmark

Make of it what you will, post whatever you want from it.
Just don't leave anything important out. I'll call you on it.





I'd rather live here-
Iceland

Personally I think we should-
-audit the fed
-not bail out banks, jail the criminal banksters instead (like in Iceland)
-dissolve the electoral college, use popular vote
-allow taxpayers to determine how their taxes are spent
-end all foreign entanglements

If we convert to a socialist model, I believe we are just going to be handing the government even more of our income to do with what they want which is proven to be funding the military. And one must take heed to history and current events which show us- more undeclared wars, and a Government that spies on 100% of the communication of their citizens. I believe that is mostly why giving the government more power is very unsettling to alot of people.

It's awesome and shows great character to want to help others rise up. Unfortunately, that is not what would happen here, proven by Obama and our current foreign military spending.



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 05:37 PM
link   
a reply to: raedar


Personally I think we should-
-audit the fed
-not bail out banks, jail the criminal banksters instead (like in Iceland)
-dissolve the electoral college, use popular vote
-allow taxpayers to determine how their taxes are spent
-end all foreign entanglements

Well, whaddyaknow?

I think all of those things too!!!

As for Iceland - it's included in the NORDIC model of democratic socialism, same as Denmark.

The Nordic model (also called Nordic capitalism[1] or Nordic social democracy)[2][3] refers to the economic and social policies common to the Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Norway, Iceland and Sweden).

Pay attention now, raedar:

This includes a combination of free market capitalism with a comprehensive welfare state and collective bargaining at the national level.[4][5]

Although there are significant differences among the Nordic countries, they all share some common traits. These include support for a "universalist" welfare state aimed specifically at enhancing individual autonomy and promoting social mobility;

a corporatist system involving a tripartite arrangement where representatives of labor and employers negotiate wages and labor market policy mediated by the government;

[6] and a commitment to widespread private ownership, free markets and free trade.[7]


Now. Any questions?



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 11:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Semicollegiate

So you think "Socialism" (capitalized so as to make it seem like some unifed dark mysterious force) was responsible for the War Between the States?


The Federalist Party which died and reincarnated as the Whigs who morphed into the Republicans were all known to be in favor of "the Tariff, a central bank, and internal improvements". The Federalist/Whig/Republicans were in favor of the central government taking care of business for the common folks. Such is proto-Socialism or defacto Socialism or relative Socialism -- but it is not freedom or capitalism.

The minds that support socialism used the Union's rhetoric of centralization. If the South had seceded, Germany and Italy might not have unified and Austro-Hungary would have broken up on its own.

Socialism requires central power and is the only argument in favor of central power.





First "Central Bank" in the US was chartered by Congress in 1791. I realize that doesn't fit your narrative, but it is, nonetheless, the fact.

... as to the rest of your uniquely self-defined terms and ill-informed proclamations, I leave it to others to counter, if any are interested.


Socialists nee Centralizers have been at work since the Enlightenment.

Anti-socialists argue that Socialism is really a con perpetrated by controllers. The controllers have always been there, have always ruled, and have always centralized more power when they could.

You seem insensible to that concept.

Socialism is a something for nothing Ponzi Scheme that buys an additional group of voters every generation.



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 11:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Semicollegiate

"The Industrial Revolution" ... in which country? During which years? You might as well refer to "the Middle Ages."

Are you claiming that in either the UK or the US (since that would be most relevant) there was no government regulation of business or the economy in those countries at that time?


Who can regulate things that don't exist?

Regulation came after invention during the Industrial Revolution.

I'm not sure about the UK, but in the US, the Federal government was the tariff and the post office until the Interstate Commerce Commission of 1887. In the US, the Industrial Revolution happened in what Bakunin the Anarchist called "already anarchism".

In the US, the Industrial Revolution stopped about the time of antitrust and the FDA. Coincidence?







As to the "Coincidence?" bit ... you're just pulling a rabbit out of your hat and then talking through the hat.

Be specific about what you're referring to or don't bother.


Your response will be based on propaganda that ignores the vast quantities of products sold at constantly decreasing prices, the reduction of hours worked as a benefit of capital machinery increasing production, and the improvement of working conditions and health standards enabled by increased wealth and only possible by increased wealth -- because lefties are all programmed to ignore all that.



posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 08:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: amazing
I don't think there is a huge problem with socialism as it's defined here on this thread as life in Denmark.



And of course the socialists there in Denmark would certainly know they are being held up as an example of "benevolent socialism" wouldn't they?



posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 09:04 AM
link   
a reply to: raedar

Iceland is more Socialist than we are guy.



posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 10:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: BrianFlanders

originally posted by: amazing
I don't think there is a huge problem with socialism as it's defined here on this thread as life in Denmark.



And of course the socialists there in Denmark would certainly know they are being held up as an example of "benevolent socialism" wouldn't they?


But what does that remark mean?

If you research Denmark, they have low unemployment, high standard of living, generally very happy people, they can retire in their 60s (all of them), they have lot's of good public transportation, free healthcare and college education, and they have pretty good wealth...they own houses, condos, cars, companies, motorcycles etc. What's not to like?



posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 10:45 AM
link   
a reply to: amazing

Correct. And there's been information posted in this very thread to show that.

But some people just refuse to accept it.
Because America



posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 01:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: infolurker

originally posted by: mikkelno
a reply to: infolurker

Nothing wrong with being helpful to the people who needs help. That's also a christian view, am i right?


Are you being serious?

Being relieved of your property and the fruits of your labor by the threat of government (fines, prison, or barrel of a gun) is not a Christian view.


Who says that's going to happen. I just came back from Ireland, a democratic socialist country. The people on TV and Radio were normal citizens discussing how money was going to be spent and where you could go vote. Everyone seemed to take care of one another, no homeless, people didn't lock their doors because there wasn't anything to fear. America has it wrong. We've let corporations screw over everyone and everything. Time to try something new.



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 04:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: BrianFlanders

originally posted by: amazing
I don't think there is a huge problem with socialism as it's defined here on this thread as life in Denmark.



And of course the socialists there in Denmark would certainly know they are being held up as an example of "benevolent socialism" wouldn't they?


But what does that remark mean?


It's simple cause and effect. Villains learning from the past and doing what needs to be done to make it look like they're not as bad as they used to be.



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 02:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: BrianFlanders

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: BrianFlanders

originally posted by: amazing
I don't think there is a huge problem with socialism as it's defined here on this thread as life in Denmark.



And of course the socialists there in Denmark would certainly know they are being held up as an example of "benevolent socialism" wouldn't they?


But what does that remark mean?


It's simple cause and effect. Villains learning from the past and doing what needs to be done to make it look like they're not as bad as they used to be.


But we're talking about Denmark. Are you saying Denmark is all Villian's and their wealth and high standard of living is a lie? Do tell.




top topics



 
24
<< 13  14  15    17 >>

log in

join