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.

 

The Postmodern Socialist

page: 3
34
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 22 2017 @ 03:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I was asking you how it was socialist.



+5 more 
posted on Sep, 22 2017 @ 03:14 PM
link   
This OP is nothing more than a litany of pure bunkum. Some of the more blatant dishonesties are:

1. The earlier cohesive statement of socialism would be the founding of the First International (IWA) in London in 1864. The earliest government that could reasonably be called "socialist" was the Paris Commune of 1871. So the comment that socialism has been a failed experiment for over 200 years is simply wrong, or, the terms of what the author suggests qualifies as "socialism" could be expanded, as there have been, since the beginning, very many different approaches, but of course, that would not have allowed for the evangelical sophistry on display here.

2. Another long list of unsubstantiated claims. Totalitarianism and tyranny are autocratic governments not socialistic. This is a common conflation useful only because most Americans' only experience with "socialism" is the USSR and the People's Republic of China. This list of complaints basically derives directly from tired 1950's anti-Communist rhetoric. Wasn't true then, isn't true now.

3. Pure "capitalism" simply doesn't exist. There has never been a nation that has had a purely capitalist economy or market-based governmental structure. Therefore most of the claims about the wonders of capitalism here, at least those that are somewhat accurate, actually come from the circumstances found in mixed economies. Numerous systems with a high degree of "Laissez-faire" policies have failed however, and failed miserably, culminating in events like the world-wide catastrophe known as the Great Depression.

... and that's only the first two paragraphs, at which point, the prattle bored me.



posted on Sep, 22 2017 @ 03:18 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Who are the ones who convinced/tricked those people into taking out loans they couldn't afford? The banks. Who are the ones who got bailed out instead of the people? The banks. Who are the ones who came out of the collapse richer than ever? The banks.

But yeah, it was the people who were at fault, the banks just got "lucky" and benefited immensely from the collapse in the end, almost as if that was the plan all along.
edit on 9/22/2017 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2017 @ 03:20 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

It's as socialist as any other welfare program.



posted on Sep, 22 2017 @ 03:24 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope


Ummm...I find myself in agreement with much of those posting...Capitalism works best when tempered with social programs...

The very best culmination of this will be the universal basic income...where the proletariat can kick back and veg out on hologramatic porn while the wench bot services all the needs...Yessir...when corporatocracies own everything...including the shirt on your back...yet provide the free life...living will be ever so much fun...






YouSir



posted on Sep, 22 2017 @ 03:28 PM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Wait.

So you are claiming that banks come to people, into where they live, with loan paperwork and badger them into signing it?

You're funny.

That's like saying that because I receive upteen billion credit card offers in the mail that I *must* apply for every single one because they are *tricking* me into taking that free credit.
edit on 22-9-2017 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2017 @ 03:32 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

No, I'm saying that banks were guilty of predatory lending which is why H.R. 1728 was introduced in 2009, to stop such practices.
edit on 9/22/2017 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2017 @ 03:32 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Young socialists don't want socialism. They want to not work and get free s#!t from rich people. Most of them probably don't know how to define socialism.



posted on Sep, 22 2017 @ 03:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: 4003fireglo
Since there were so many expensive, confusing, and taxing words in your post I couldn't help but wonder if you ran it through turnitin.com to check for plagiarism before you posted it here.


What confuses you? Maybe I could explain it a little better.


Your actual motive.



posted on Sep, 22 2017 @ 03:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: ketsuko

No, I'm saying that banks were guilty of predatory lending which is why H.R. 1728 was introduced in 2009, to stop such practices.


But no one forces anyone to sign a loan agreement. At what point do you expect people to do some homework and learn about what they are agreeing to?

Or do you expect the government to save everyone from their own stupidity and simply blame business automatically if someone makes a dumb choice?

For example, was it McDonald's fault the women who bought the hot coffee she immediately tuck between her legs and spilled got burned? I mean, I'm sure McDonald's could care less about that lady personally. They're just out for profit you know.



posted on Sep, 22 2017 @ 03:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: YouSir

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: 4003fireglo
Since there were so many expensive, confusing, and taxing words in your post I couldn't help but wonder if you ran it through turnitin.com to check for plagiarism before you posted it here.


So your criticism of the OP is that he used big words?



Ummm...nah...that was the red herring...the real intent was to accuse LeMis of plagiarism...




YouSir


Wrong.

The whole post sounded pedantic and unsincere, as though the OP just wants to try out his writing skills before he starts a blog.

I could be wrong, though. I typically am.



posted on Sep, 22 2017 @ 03:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
This OP is nothing more than a litany of pure bunkum. Some of the more blatant dishonesties are:

1. The earlier cohesive statement of socialism would be the founding of the First International (IWA) in London in 1864. The earliest government that could reasonably be called "socialist" was the Paris Commune of 1871. So the comment that socialism has been a failed experiment for over 200 years is simply wrong, or, the terms of what the author suggests qualifies as "socialism" could be expanded, as there have been, since the beginning, very many different approaches, but of course, that would not have allowed for the evangelical sophistry on display here.

2. Another long list of unsubstantiated claims. Totalitarianism and tyranny are autocratic governments not socialistic. This is a common conflation useful only because most Americans' only experience with "socialism" is the USSR and the People's Republic of China. This list of complaints basically derives directly from tired 1950's anti-Communist rhetoric. Wasn't true then, isn't true now.

3. Pure "capitalism" simply doesn't exist. There has never been a nation that has had a purely capitalist economy or market-based governmental structure. Therefore most of the claims about the wonders of capitalism here, at least those that are somewhat accurate, actually come from the circumstances found in mixed economies. Numerous systems with a high degree of "Laissez-faire" policies have failed however, and failed miserably, culminating in events like the world-wide catastrophe known as the Great Depression.

... and that's only the first two paragraphs, at which point, the prattle bored me.


1. I said theory and in practice, something you conveniently avoided mentioning.

2. I never said totalitarianism and tyranny is limited to socialism. I never mentioned "pure" capitalism or socialism. I explicitly said in practice and in theory.

And the post-modern socialist appears.



posted on Sep, 22 2017 @ 03:49 PM
link   
a reply to: 4003fireglo



Wrong.

The whole post sounded pedantic and unsincere, as though the OP just wants to try out his writing skills before he starts a blog.

I could be wrong, though. I typically am.



And your post sounds infantile, but I won't hold it against you.



posted on Sep, 22 2017 @ 03:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: ketsuko

No, I'm saying that banks were guilty of predatory lending which is why H.R.1728 was introduced in 2009, to stop such practices.


I see the propaganda works well.

I've worked in mortgage finance for 15 years. Every mortgage prior to that legislation still had a good faith estimate, HUD-1 settlement statement. Note. Mortgage. Disclosures out the wazoo. There is no possible way any borrower did not know the terms of their mortgage unless they are being willfully ignorant.

The only way anyone is getting a predatory loan is if they are functionally illiterate. Did it happen? Yes, but not in the numbers politicians and activist would have you believe.



posted on Sep, 22 2017 @ 03:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t




It's as socialist as any other welfare program.


Welfare programs are not socialist.



posted on Sep, 22 2017 @ 03:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: ketsuko

No, I'm saying that banks were guilty of predatory lending which is why H.R. 1728 was introduced in 2009, to stop such practices.



That's kind of like blaming the drug dealer for your drug addiction.
Especially when we had laws forcing the drug dealers to deal in your neighborhood.

People will lie cheat and steal to get a loan. My wife hears it every day.



posted on Sep, 22 2017 @ 03:54 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

That's why they introduced H.R. 1728, to stop banks from taking advantage of people who are ignorant about bank loans.

Is it ok to knowingly convince someone to take out a loan that you know wouldn't be able to be paid back?

It's called "predatory" lending for a reason, it implies taking advantage of someone for your own benefit. Guess who benefited from the collapse? The banks who approved all those bogus loans to begin with.

But they're totally innocent, they didn't force people to take out loans that they approved knowing they would end up tanking in the end! The people should have ignored the experts they were talking to. Who actually believes and trusts experts? They should have known they were only approving those bogus loans to raise their own commission rates!

Talk about kicking someone while they're down. Not only did they lose everything because of predatory lending, they're also blamed for everything collapsing.



posted on Sep, 22 2017 @ 03:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Krazysh0t




It's as socialist as any other welfare program.


Welfare programs are not socialist.


Actually social security is a welfare program.



posted on Sep, 22 2017 @ 03:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Bluntone22

So trying to buy a place to live is the same as doing drugs? Is the drug dealer not also guilty of a crime for selling the drugs?



posted on Sep, 22 2017 @ 04:00 PM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

so you think all those people went out and bought houses that they could afford?
Or maybe just maybe lots of them overspent?
There were a lot of reasons for the housing bubble bursting and it wasn't all because of banks.



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join