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.
originally posted by: TheTory
To avoid such a travesty again, we would have to allow the natural regulations and incentives of the free market to pick the winners and losers in our economy, not the whims of bureaucrats and politicians. Those banks should have failed.
"Going after the banks" is simply more government intervention to rectify past government intervention. I don't see how that works.
What free market? Unchecked capitalism destroys the free market (and has). How is there a free market when mega-corps set pricing, own the means of manufacturing and distribution (and certainly aren't going to give the competition access), write the laws, can buy out competition, own the locations where there is foot traffic (and buy the building that the competition had), have the capital to slander the competition and advertise in a way that keeps competition irrelevant, has a team of lawyers to sue the competition for who knows what (it doesn't matter because a legal battle of any kind will put the smaller competition out of business), etc. etc. etc.
The "free market" solution is a terribly sad meme that only benefits the wealthy and is keeping them in power. And you are doing their work for them.
Time/Warner anyone?
originally posted by: TheTory
a reply to: amicktd
Most conservatives that attack Bernie as a Socialist is all they have as an attack anyways, so if other Bernie supporters are anything like me their opinion usually falls on deaf ears.
Attacking a politician for his policies... that's unheard of. You might also notice Conservatives avoid attacking people's character. We'll leave that for other political affiliations.
Please. We get to hear all the time about Hillary being a hag and an evil bitch, how her husband was a cigar-toting rapist and Obama being socialist Muslim scum.
Conservatives love to make personal attacks, especially when the talking points from their favorite Right-Wing propagandist turn out to be false.
originally posted by: TheTory
a reply to: okrian
I realize that, and agree to a certain extent. But I think unchecked capitalism is the result of unchecked consumerism. So I think you're only blaming a small slice of those who should be held accountable for the current states of affairs.
originally posted by: TheBulk
originally posted by: Tearman
I think most Sanders supporters have pretty clear ideas about why they support him and don't realy give a damn about your definition of socialism.
Yes, they want to use the brute force of government to forcibly take money away from people they don't like, so they cane have "free" stuff.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Sremmos80
Interestingly the only people who repeat the "free stuff" mantra are conservatives trying to strawman Socialism. I've yet to see a supporter of Socialism, or heck liberal policies in general ever go on and on about getting free stuff from the government.
I was agreeing with you. You are correct, a straw man argument is deflection much like you described in your first post. It is a logical fallacy. Sanders is not for Socialism in the manner many are claiming.
originally posted by: okrian
originally posted by: Devino
This would be called a straw man argument. Not a very good one, by the way, as it isn't that easy to "knock over" as is evident by the many discussions found here on ATS over Socialism.
And this would be called deflection. You are merely throwing out the term "straw man" in a blind attempt to negate. Besides referring to vague "discussions" (and most likely those discussions pre-defined by those who have an agenda when it comes to explaining what socialism is) as your support? Address the fact that Sanders doesn't actually want to implement pure 'socialism'... by any definition.
Besides, where did I ignore the actual content of the post... I addressed it directly. The last line of my post did give a fairly standard global definition of socialism.
The false narrative in the OP is clear.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
originally posted by: TheBulk
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: xuenchen
Considering how badly the right misrepresents Socialism, I'm not surprised. It's hard to get a consistent answer about what Socialism is and isn't. Then that propaganda bleeds over to the left because people want to have balanced perspectives and get confused. Heck conservative members are doing it here in this thread.
Yes, its "the right's" fault that there are so many examples of failed socialist states. I bet you think its "the right's" fault people fear Muslims too. Is there anything your boogyman isn't responsible for?
Failed Socialist states? Most of the 1st world is Socialist to some degree, with the countries with the highest standards of living being the most Socialist. Your view of reality is warped buddy.
PS: Yes it is the right's fault that people fear muslims.
originally posted by: Esoterotica
Maybe if we were a democratic socialist country instead of a quasi fascist oligarchic capitalist country we'd have a better education system & people would be able to give you the Oxford definitions which some seem to put so much value on.
originally posted by: Tearman
You know there's a pretty big difference between these two things.... one, making sure a small number of individuals don't accumulate overwhelmingly disprpoportionate levels of power. And two, having the state take over everything.
The first point is what motivates me as a Bernie supporter. Private individuals should not be able to accumulate that much wealth (and thus power) unchecked. It just makes no sense to allow so much power to fall into so few hands.
originally posted by: woodwardjnr
capitalism seems to represent trickle down economics from a plutocracy
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
originally posted by: TheBulk
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
You mean like the War on Drugs?
Yes, just like that. So you agree with me?
I agree that the War on Drugs is a conservative policy and not a socialist one.