I never said one had to accept everyone. But that one shouldn’t lump everyone that doesn’t agree with you together. Which is what you do daily.
Senator Joe......"build the wall"
- Thread starter Snow Sled Baby
- Start date
Hey boom...Why no links to posts where I called you names or any of the other things you claim I'm so nasty doing? You know a free subscription is there for the taking?
If I'm as terrible as you claim, link me Bro I'll pay up.
Last edited:
Boomer my man if I had a nickel for every post you make "lumping" folks who disagree with you together my 401K would pay off the national debt!
Give me a break. You really are quite inpressed with yourself aren't you my Man?
Is that fame you seek or ignominious accolades?
I guess you forget about the HUNDREDS of pages of posts that I’ve made trying to discuss my opinions and understand your opinions?
Now it’s just me going after you, every time I see you bashing the lot of “leftists” in a post, because your desire for division is bad for this nation.
Now see that's the boomer we all know and respect. Always leading the way with graciousness, alacrity, and malifluous interpretations of the finest in English vernacular.
Last edited:
Game? Really? This is a rivals message board. WTF are you talking about? Accolades? From whom? You? Board admins? Please.
I’m impressed with a nation that has used many different approaches to policy to become the success it is today. I’m impressed with the GOP right wing economic approach that has led us to positive results at times in our history. I’m impressed with the liberal ideology that has led us away from rigid reigious restrictions on science, healthcare, and social advancement. I’m impressed with (what you would call) socialist policy that has saved elderly from dying in poverty and has emancipated workers from ridiculously oppressive conditions. Im impressed with men and women that have remained loyal to their religious beliefs in the face of overt oppression and threats......all religions. I’m impressed with the great thinkers in this nations history to have disagreed viciously on policy approaches, yet have found common ground and made this nation better for it....from Adams and Jefferson to the present, I’m impressed with America. Learn about it sometime.
You accused me a few posts back in this thread of some of the worst behavior towards you and other posters imaginable.
I challenged you (as I usually do when we debate) to back up your assertions, even offering to pay your subscription to this sight for one year if you can provide some examples.
Rather than accept my challenge, you have proceeded to demonstrate the exact behavior you accused me of while still not providing proof of your original incorrect assertion.
A Man not wise enough to realize his own folly is doomed to demonstrate his lack of self awareness to everyone else.
Someone once said that but I don't know who. However it fits here boom wouldn't you agree?
You didn't mention how impressed you were with the Freedom & Liberty from Almighty God that made all of that possible.
Just thought I'd add that little ingredient to the mix since you forgot to include him.
I thought you don't attack posters who disagree with you boom? You hear all sides right? But not mine? Damn, I'm so fortunate to be your "do not disturb" door placard!
Last edited:
I'm sorry boom, you did indeed mention Religion in this 'homage to America' from the previous post, and I said you left out Almighty God. I was wrong.
My bad. This was actually also very good, which is why I do like you boom even though you don't think your sh*t stinks. However we might disagree over the role of Government and the factors that led to this Nation's greatness...we do agree it is quite remarkable for all the reasons you stated and more.
I'd argue Freedom was our common propellant. Freedom to do what we endeavored, Freedom to create, Freedom to dream, Freedom to innovate, challenge, migrate, assimilate, and pro create and yes even to Worship as we reached to realize our God given abilities and potential.
As long as we remain Free, the greatness you brilliantly outlined here that is no doubt part of our History of unchallenged success will continue. We loose that Freedom however if we are not duly respectful and protective of where it is sourced. I argue for us to realize that source is Yahweh God, from whom all these good things have come.
He will continue to Bless this nation as long as we continue to honor his providence over it as we did upon its founding. No one is unsatisfied with the results recognizing that unique foundation of this land, unlike any other in the history of the World except Israel which is also endowed by the same foundation from the same God and flourishes just as we do.
Almighty God is good all the time!
Last edited:
Not to belabor this thread boom cause no one really cares, but I can prove this (talking out of both sides for you) fairly quickly. If you remember during our "was Dr. King a Socialist" scrum I asked you to provide some examples of Socialist countries that were successful. You answered with some European countries in Scandinavia which I then linked you to that demonstrated they were primarily Capitalist, but experimented with Socialism which many were in fact rejecting. Similar to what we have here in America.
Then if you recall, we've had previous discussion as to weather this nation (America) is in fact "Christian" by its foundations even though it does allow Freedom of worship for other Faiths. Of course you insist it is not, yet you do recognize it is also not Socialist! However to prove your point that Socialism works, you insisted on saying those European countries were in fact Socialist, simply because like America they do have Socialist programs.
So this to me is trying to have it both ways. On the one hand to you America cannot be "Christian" even though primarily it is the dominant Faith in this country but simply allows Freedom of Worship for other Faiths which surely Socialist nations do not allow. However on the other hand in order to prove your point that Socialism does work, you use European models that are in fact more Capitalist than Socialist in their constitutions then call them "Socialist". So to you America can't be "Christian" even allowing different Faiths, but those European countries must be "Socialist" despite their existing Capitalist systems similar to America's. You obviously left out of your answer pure Socialist countries that do not allow either Capitalism or Faith (such as N. Korea) and of course all of those have failed.
I know you'll still probably disagree with what I've characterized here as you talking out of both sides but this was the latest example I could think of to back my claim. There are others, but again it's not fair to the board for me to rehash all of them.
You'll just have to trust me for not being a fvcking liar.
Last edited:
Your ******** question was “show me where socialism works”—- I contended that the US used socialist solutions as well (but you don’t remember that at all). I point to nations in Europe and Scandinavia because their models of democratic Socialism is an actual hybrid. Much like the hybrid I advocate for (and MLK advocated for) in the states.
We’ve had this “show me” discussion before, and I referenced two nations Cuba and China as successes from your idea of “pure socialism”, to which I also stated that you wouldn’t probably count China since the transition, and that Cuba would fall short of success.
This current discussion, if you were honest enough to really look at it, was about MLK advocating for socialist solutions to economic problems. Meaning, neither myself, MLK, or Bernie Sanders advocate for the “pure”, Marxist- socialist- communist overturn of democratic socialism you claim ALL leftists advocate for. Maybe you remember how I referenced our school system multiple times and the defense industry as examples of how socialism works in certain areas?
But you choose to steer the debate where you want it to go through your questions....which in this case was “show me where socialism has worked?”. Well, again I am not advocating for your idea of a “pure” socialist form of government. Hence, in this discussion, I reference nations in Europe and Scandinavia as examples of socialism working. Because they are. And so are we to a degree.
Now am I lying or talking out of both sides of mouth? No. The US and other nations I referenced are not socialist, but they are absolutely nations in which socialist solutions have been successful.
Again with the Christian argument here, you do the same. My contention is that the US was founded to respect religious freedom. Our founders chose not to incorporate specific references Christian doctrine or specific deities like Christ in the formation of our laws, because they wanted this nation to be able to accommodate liberty of worshipping Americans of different faiths and non worshipping Americans as well. So, no this isn’t a Christian nation. However, I’m well aware of the fact that the majority of our founders derived their personal morality from their Christian faith.
Maybe you think I’m foolish enough to not understand this point? I teach history. The point that is both valid and very important, is that our founders chose not to incorporate those specific religious connections into our nations establishing documents. The “by our creatorS” line of the DECLARATION was a specific reference to how our Devine rights were personal and no longer dictated by a divinely anointed King or by a church.
You’re Christian. And as many Christians want to believe today, you think this somehow more your nation than it is for people of different faiths or non believers. It isn’t. The founders sought an America that embraced individual rights without the Christian doctrine being the binding prerequisite. To me, it’s another example of the selflessness and intelligence that went into the creation of this nation. That men like Madison, Jefferson, and Adams set aside their personal religious devotion in order to create the framework that protected men’s rights devoid of religious doctrine is one of the key points of the American creation and experience.
Just because men like you seek to attach your personal beliefs to the creation and experience today, doesn’t mean that our founders aimed to do the same....even if your religious faith were identical.
On all of these points above... I’ve never flip flopped or “changed” my beliefs. You want to see it that way, so you can once more belittle another person and file me neatly away in the “less than you” pile of folders you step on daily. It’s not true, and you are a liar.
OK boom but if you were arguing for Socialism that works why did you refer in your answer to these countries being "Socialist"?
My question to you was can you point out a successful Socialist country? Those were your examples were they not?
I get what you're saying in terms of explaining why you think the Socialist experiments worked in those countries but then you couldn't answer my question in which Socialist nations are folks either happy with it or were free to leave or vote it out if it wasn't working so well?
We're just mixing two different answers to the same question I asked which was where is a Socialist nation successful?
I thought it was a pretty straightforward question really boom.
Last edited:
Just so there's no ambiguity boom, I asked this same question to Popeer in this thread below and I'm quoting his answers. I'll state again, my position is there are no successful Socialist countries running Socialism as it's planned, or designed. I've asked for examples and all I get are convoluted explanations like yours in post #214 of this thread or this response from Popeer from a thread we had back in the early part of December...a portion of which I have copied here for you.
link to full thread:
https://westvirginia.forums.rivals....eftists-socialists.161542/page-2#post-1777240
link to full thread:
https://westvirginia.forums.rivals....eftists-socialists.161542/page-2#post-1777240
That
Again, your straight forward question is just an attempt to steer the conversation into a place that allows you the high ground. An old trick.
If your question was a valid question, it would be something like: the socialist solutions we’ve enacted here have not been successful, can you tell me which socialist solutions have worked?
Or maybe - don’t you think that once we begin enacting socialist solutions, our system would begin to move further and further away from the capitalist based system that has been so successful?
These are examples of valid questions that you might have asked if you were trying to have a legitimate discussion about the posts I made. Instead, you tried to make it about comparing socialist nations to capitalist nations. Again, relevant maybe, but valid to the points I was making? No
yeah, it was the first time you asked....like many threads ago. Socialism works in some areas, and the free market works in others, government regulation works in some areas and doesn’t in others. In this specific conversation, your desire to move the discussion into a capitalism versus socialism debate was not just frustrating it was invalid to the actual points being discussed (that MLK advocated for socialist solutions, and socialist solutions work).
Again, your straight forward question is just an attempt to steer the conversation into a place that allows you the high ground. An old trick.
If your question was a valid question, it would be something like: the socialist solutions we’ve enacted here have not been successful, can you tell me which socialist solutions have worked?
Or maybe - don’t you think that once we begin enacting socialist solutions, our system would begin to move further and further away from the capitalist based system that has been so successful?
These are examples of valid questions that you might have asked if you were trying to have a legitimate discussion about the posts I made. Instead, you tried to make it about comparing socialist nations to capitalist nations. Again, relevant maybe, but valid to the points I was making? No
Are we a pure free market economy? Is the US an example of capitalism that is successful without the aid or benefit of any other incorporated policy?
No we are not boom. A pure Free market economy would not have an income tax,(we'd have a national retail sales tax) the EPA, the FCC, the SEC, USFWS, Department of Commerce, Department of Education, or the entire roster of alphabet soup agencies that constitute our current Leviathan which is running over 20 trillion dollars in debt and placing a veritable stranglehold on our otherwise Free enterprise Capitalistic system. I contend we are successful because our dynamic and powerful economy operates well despite these Governmental constraints not because of them!
I've said the less Government we have, the better it is for all. I see nothing those agencies provide to improve on our free market system that we couldn't accomplish better without them and in significantly less debt with substantially more economic growth or performance of our free market economy.
Last edited:
I do like that question boom. Can you answer it? Do you define "success" as merely the existence of the Socialist program, or exactly how would you quantify "success" in terms of actual results? What program?
Last edited:
The GOP ran up debt too. I don’t like our debt or running a deficit either.
But again, where would our capitalist system be if we hadn’t bailed out monster companies in 08, or busted trusts under Teddy, or enacted worker protections or programs like social security?
I am more than willing boom to make that comparison. In fact I've been trying with any of you Leftists but there are so few Socialist models that meet your criterion. All the examples you guys throw up have Capitalist economies! Those that do not are dismal failures.
Last edited:
Again, you continuously miss the friggin point. Even Bernie Sanders is not advocating for a total overhaul of our system.
I do agree with you on the debt (Republicans just as responsible) however the answer isn't to keep increasing our debt ceiling and borrowing more money. The bailouts were a disaster because it established a horrible precedent...Uncle Same cannot bail out every poorly run or under capitalized private enterprise. That's what we have bankruptcy laws for boom. Social Security would be better run in private investment markets. Smoot Hawley and other depression era programs prolonged the depression and made it worse.
Last edited:
I know you are teacher and you take it personally and there are certainly some examples of public schools doing well but in general the public school system has been a dismal failure and compared to private schools there is no comparison.
The department of education is a bureaucratic ball and chain around delivery of quality education services. You're a teacher you already know this boomer!
You had a very good suggestion in a thread recently where you advocated for local control of schools with teachers and administrators closest to the students.
I think that is an excellent suggestion and a model that we could both agree on.
Last edited:
Boomer the problem with Sander's message is that he'd destroy most wealth acquisition and accumulation in our economy by nationalizing all major industries! So who would raise the capital or feed the private equity markets necessary for business expansion to grow the economy if all of the wealth is being confiscated by the Government? How could there by an Apple planning a 350 billion dollar expansion? With what? Food stamps?
Again, you are taking examples to the extreme. Taxing corporations to pay for programs that benefit lower class Americans isn’t wealth redistribution, imo. At any rate, he doesn’t advocate for eliminating all of the wealth from corporate or wealthy America.
The CCC didnt work? The TVA? Either your knowledge of history is limited, or younsee it through an ideological lens.
And food stamps are designed to be a temporary measure to help families afford proper nutrition for their children. You, and other conservatives, see the program as a type of drug injected into poor families that keep them from having the strength to go out and do it for themselves.....and I get that sentiment. But don’t act like it never had good intentions, or isn’t a program that has helped families at all.
Public schools can absolutely be successful, and if you look at nations like Norway, you seebthe system working very very well. The answer isn’t always in privatization, it can also be in how the program or system is administered and evaluated.
Public schools can absolutely be successful, and if you look at nations like Norway, you seebthe system working very very well. The answer isn’t always in privatization, it can also be in how the program or system is administered and evaluated.
When did Sanders advocate nationalizing all major industries? He desribed himself as a democratic socialist, a moniker that is ascribed to nations like Sweden that you've pointed out aren't purely socialist.
What wealth would he allow individuals to keep with a tax on almost 70% of earnings?
It was still graduated rates, but that's not what I was addressing. Heavily taxing private industry is one issue. Nationalizing private industry is another thing entirely. I never heard him advocate that idea.
The reverse has been the extent of the actual food stamp program.(dependence)
Public schools do not perform on balance and when measured against private competition are inferior or failures.
Taxing corporations only discourages their expansion and growth. Look at the dynamic effect Trump's tax cuts have had on incomes and investments. All of that money would have gone to Government instead.
People keeping more of what they earn and Government having less of it to spend is always superior to the reverse.
Last edited:
Health insurance is not all major industry. That article doesn't support your claim on that. We can discuss Bernie's policies from a financial point of view, but my concern was your claim about nationalizing industries.
Again, I am a proponent of TEMPORARY measures to help lower income families to have better living conditions, healthcare, opportunities. Any level of dependence on these programs (other than legitimate disability) makes the program not work as intended.
Those comparisons (that you continuously bring up) are substantially skewed. Private schools have smaller class sizes, more parent involvement, better living conditions and health for most students, less disciplinary issues, better paid more effective educators, etc... that make those comparisons problematic to say the least.
There hasn’t been tax cuts before? I’m concerned about the long run. Let’s see if wages match inflation, let’s see if the budgets of the middle class are substantially larger, expansion and growth are very good. But you’re foolish to think that expansion and growth doesn’t happen without anything more than a demand motivation. Where there is money to be made, businesses will be there. Chicken and egg thing with jobs, yes, but corporate America doesn’t always have to be the driving force of our economy, imo.
Less taxes = good, got it.
Skewed or not the facts are Private schools work better so lets use that model. Government doesn't have to run education and it can't.
Food stamp intentions are great but as I said the result is dependence because there is no incentive to get off of them if there is no limit to the amount one can have of them.
You already have evidence middle class budgets are increasing. Business expansions become inflationary only if markets do not increase capacity to grow. Greater demands for goods and services simply means a larger economy which means more jobs, more taxpayers and ultimately more revenues for the Government. There is no more efficient or effective way to increase take home paychecks than keeping the economy growing with low taxation and limited confiscation by Government of individual earnings.
Health insurance is a 1/3 of our economy and one of its biggest components. Nationalizing industry can also be tantamount to Government controls over most aspects of private enterprise...which he most certainly favors through massive redistribution of income and wealth.
The best program for lower class people in need is work...jobs...employment. What works better?
Government exerting control over industry through taxation and regulation is not at all the same as "nationalizing all major industry".
At some point you could just admit that you overstated your case. It happens, no shame in it.
Latest
-
01
WV Sports
There's one area where Scotty Fox was already among the Big 12's best
-
02
WV Sports
WVU fall camp intel: Freshman receiver already turning heads
-
03
WV Sports
West Virginia fall camp is here. Join WVSports.com for 75% off
-
04
WV Sports
The transfer portal hasn't changed how Rich Rodriguez coaches
-
05
WV Sports
West Virginia finds value in a junior college market others overlook