One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Posts for: truthiness
Page: <<prev 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ... 42 next>>
Aug 4, 2019 01:39:45   #
RT friend wrote:
This is one argument against it being socialism, it comes from the idea that there is this industrial processes that was, and is still very technical, that the Neanderthals used to glue flintstones to the tips of their spears, it wasn't just sap and binding as most people think.

What they did was, Neanderthals got all this bark from a certain tree and heated it up to a certain temperature catching all the drips from the bark in some kind of container, the whole process had to be enclosed to make the bark sweat and bleed not singe and scar over.

If the Neanderthals only kept a few old people alive by feeding them and giving them precious shelter because they were expert technicians, what would be the chances of our finding this old Neanderthal who lived almost twice as long as the average ?.

Spain has uncovered 28 Neanderthal people.
China ?.
Croatia 30.
South Africa 18.
Lucy who we all know in Ethiopia + hundreds of other bone fragments not matched to specific people.

There are 6,000 individuals listed by the Museum of Natural History.
https://medium.com

That's 6,000 out how many that ever lived ?, "Quora question answered by 3 knowledgeable contributors " What is the total number of Neanderthals that had ever lived".
For the 360,000 years Neanderthals lived on the planet Earth there were all together 1 million contemporary Neanderthals alive at the peak of their population, maybe there was an average constant population of 500,000 Neanderthals over 360,000 years, that is a lot of people to only sample from 6,000 individuals.

I agree with your summing up , it was a socialist act coming from a feeling of empathy.

Neanderthals buried their dead, here is a 50,000 year old grave in France.
v.nationalgeographic.com

The reason I went for the acceptable contrast between politics and culture being breached was because the title made me suspicious "State Socialism in the Reddest of States", so I read the two articles and thought there was this apparent social acceptance of the redneck image being improperly used.

Does the US want to promote wayward rednecks, and Socialism, or maybe rednecks are a fact of life being used to promote socialism or oppose socialism, which ever one it is, depends on the reader's personal opinions, my point is simply that the connection is "wrong" because it is "a guaranteed failure", and who will be the beneficiary of this political strategies inevitable collapse?.

Humm, !!! everything I am opposed too.

The Soviets were promoting their ideological cause the Russians are not, they are promoting their "political cause" which is different and can't be countered with McCarthyism.

State Socialism is a political semantic and the reddest of States is referring to as you say, a large group of people, in my opinion this large group is bundled together by a colloquial description of a wayward loose cannon type individual.

The symmetry seems to deliberately imply that red neck types of individuals are anti socialist which is true, but why is it true, could it be rednecks are feeling-less sociopaths on a bender working within a common PSYOP , yes that is somewhat true, but if there are so many red necks the sociopath part of the description, Oh !! My God it must apply to, !!!! I'll say no more.

Thank you for your reply.

This is one argument against it being socialism, i... (show quote)

"The Soviets were promoting their ideological cause the Russians are not, they are promoting their "political cause" which is different and can't be countered with McCarthyism."
Very interesting.
Go to
Aug 2, 2019 17:39:07   #
ImLogicallyRight wrote:
Sounds like Alaska is selling of some of its assets (oil) and just distributing a fair share to the owners of Alaska, Alaskans. Like stock holders.

Perhaps that is what Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Iraq, etc. should be doing, They own there own lands as much as anyone.

////
But that Alaskan oil is in the United States and in that sense don't all the states have a right to at least part of it. Why don't the people in Mississippi have a claim to part of that socialistic handout?
Go to
Aug 2, 2019 17:35:11   #
RT friend wrote:
Even the Neanderthal folks kept some of their old people alive.

Why, !! there's one Neanderthal I read about lived to be over 50, had only one tooth left when he died, the average age of Neanderthals was 30.

This is the first instance of Socialism my research has come up with.

Now,!! why this is important is due to the fact that using politics to create culture has produced a few good things, although I haven't come across as yet, but cultural developments have always done very well without cheap political tricks to portray material interests as culture.

Even the Neanderthal folks kept some of their old ... (show quote)


I hope I am reading your comment correctly. Is your Neanderthal case an example of socialism? It appears to me to be a situation where the group had to decide to keep a senior citizen alive and to do so it had to share its resources. This sounds to me like a socialistic act.

Is the difference between socialism and culture that you may be making depend on the size of the group--i.e., it is called culture when the of sharing resources with a non-producer occurs in a small group (tribe), but is called socialism when it occurs in a group that is very very large (country)?
Go to
Aug 2, 2019 02:22:44   #
Can it be? It must have been disastrous...people quit working, the state went to the dogs, soon there will be replacement state for 'thank goodness for Mississippi.' Who are those Red C****es?

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/13/16997188/alaska-basic-income-permanent-fund-oil-revenue-study

Oh! Here is the secret, they just don't call it socialism, and then by decree it isn't:

https://medium.com/@newworldoptimist/be-careful-calling-the-permanent-fund-dividend-socialism-in-front-of-an-alaskan-aeea95ea4f20
Go to
Aug 2, 2019 00:03:43   #
I'm sure it is just a coincidence

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a27259438/oleg-deripaska-kentucky-aluminum-mitch-mcconnell-rand-paul/
Go to
Aug 1, 2019 16:37:42   #
Lt. Rob Polans ret. wrote:
They all know it but want a soundbite. Actually, Trump has said that he'd release his tax returns (I wouldn't blame him if he never does now) when they are finished auditing him, something the dems VERY CONVENIENTLY forget.

...

How do the states rights folks look at this?

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-07-31/california-primary-trump-tax-returns-legal-analysis
Go to
Jul 31, 2019 21:53:17   #
America 1 wrote:
This may give you a little better insight:
US-China Trade War Explained -Who Needs Who?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxN12jzHrqI
1,023,886 views


Thank you.
Go to
Jul 31, 2019 00:50:30   #
As far as replacing jobs, we need to focus on bringing manufacturing jobs back, especially for the building of robotics and other automated systems. As far as tariffs, are you aware the trade/tariff balance has been much the same since WWII? When Europe and Japan were decimated, and China and a good portion of the rest of Asian countries were still basically third world countries. Do you think it is correct that the United states citizens should subsidize the rest of the world?[/quote]
...

To answer your question about subsidizing the world--immediate post-war was one thing, but today, no.
Let's look at a CEO deciding he can make money in China but he has to give up patents and commercial secrets to do so. He makes a choice of profits against secrets--how can he blame China for that?
If China is actually stealing those techniques, that is different. I think I have heard that we have never lost a case at the tribunal that adjudicates those cases. But that is costly and time-consuming. The answer is to find a way to outcompete China--it is the market way of winning.
But is Trump getting anything from the Chinese beside the usual promises that have no meaning? I don't know. He has had more than two years. And meanwhile American farmers are losing a hard-won market and on top of that you and I are paying the farmers for their current loss via our taxes. Who will pay you and me back?

Bringing manufacturing jobs back and investing in automated systems--great ideas. Who does the investing so those things can happen? The big corporations, of course. But what have they done with the money that they reaped from Trump's tax reduction? Trump told us that companies would reinvest that money back into their businesses.
If you remember, the companies told us that they would not invest and they did not. They bought back their own stock (just as they said they would)and are sitting on jillions. Why are they not investing? I don't know. Maybe the lack of a government strategy and policy for business causes them to hold back. Where are those policies developed? At the top of government. Who is at the top? A guy who claims to be a great negotiator who threatens with tariffs.
Go to
Jul 30, 2019 20:40:59   #
debeda wrote:
Your thought process is..........interesting


I will assume that is a compliment and thank you. for it.
I am not a socialist; I like markets and market economies--especially linked to the American culture and polity. But it is clear that the market economy is not omniscent and that it creates problems that it cannot solve.
Consider the plight of the small family farmer of yesteryear. He is gone because of the efficiency (money-making ability) of large farming and Big Ag that require less people to run them than does the small family farm population and with greater efficiencies. Where do those small farm people, now "excess", go?
Last week we heard the report that 30+ million Americans will lose their jobs in the near future generations due to robotics and artificial intelligence. Where do those people go? There are not an infinite supply of McDonalds hamburgers to flip. Some answer "train them." But train them for what?--the demand for jobs is decreasing not increasing.

So the market is not all knowing. It creates problems that it cannot solve. It does solve the efficiency problem, but it creates a human-society-culture problem that it cannot solve.

Who can solve it? Not the industrial complex because they are on the side of efficiency and the profits it garners. Not unions because there aren't even enough jobs to protect even if the government would allow them to. We are left with government, a very inefficent process at best. What kind of government? When the Soviet government took over the planning and control of production--well, we see how that went. Oligarchies end up in the same mess.

So we are left with markets that need to do what they do best cooperating with a freedom-based government like ours that advocates for the human-societal problems. The problem is that when some short-sighted people see the word "government," connected with such a cooperating coexistence of induxtry and government, they reflexively call it socialism and label it anti-market, anti-freedom, un-American, the precursor to c*******m.

So, as I see it, the only solution is thoughtful cooperation of industry and government, and in my opinion tariffs create more problems by limiting legitimate market freedom thereby decreasing production which is then counteracted with subsidies that come from taxes. And we are back to Trump giving $16B to farmers
which is just pure socialism and is not cooperation because tariffs are not solving the market problem even in the short term.
Go to
Jul 30, 2019 19:51:17   #
America 1 wrote:
So, you consider the trade imbalance with China a good thing?
You would be great at running a country, just not this one.


Trade imbalance with any country is not a good thing. But tariffs are not the markets' ways of solving the problem. In fact, they just exacerbate the problem.
Go to
Jul 30, 2019 19:26:42   #
debeda wrote:
There is a shortfall cuz it was deemed a tax in the early 70s. Which gave politicians carte blanche to get their greedy little hands on it. IMO


I won't fight you on that one---too true.
Go to
Jul 30, 2019 15:44:06   #
debeda wrote:
Trade/tariff imbalance is a very bad thing. But the US has rolled over for the rest of the world since WWII. President Trump is trying to fix that.


If trade/tariff imbalance is a bad thing, why isn't the all-knowing, all-powerful American free market fixing it? Looks like Trump is trying to fix it with subsidizing socialism. Where is the consistency in that? If it takes socialism to fix a freemarket problem...
Go to
Jul 30, 2019 15:24:18   #
debeda wrote:
Farm aid is nothing new, for many different reasons. And why do you compare social security and Medicare which are paid into, to this? Many people would need to live to 110 just to get the money they paid in and their employers paid in on their behalf BACK. Forget 50 years of interest


Farm aid is nothing new--true. You cancall it by wh**ever names you want to give it, but it is still socialism. The farm lobby is strong; the inefficient small farm is the backbone of the nation (a strange argument from folks who believe in the efficiency of the free market system), etc., etc., but subsidization is socialism. That is what the free marketeers said about Solyndra and they were right.
Go to
Jul 30, 2019 15:17:46   #
popparod wrote:
T***hiness, I doubt it.
There is some t***h in your statement if you remove Social Security and Medicare from it.
For your information those two programs are taken from my and my employers contributions during my 60 years of working life and would still be there if Government had not decided to rob us by putting those
Programs in the general fund.
To associate Social Security and Medicare to socialism being for people who just can’t make it on their own and need government help to eke out a living is pure BULLS**T!
Please get your facts straight and do a little research before you open your mouth and make statements that you obviously know very little about.
T***hiness, I doubt it. br There is some t***h in ... (show quote)


....

Sorry, I guess I didn't make the cynicism of my remark obvious enough for you. It was a paraphrase of the folks who think that any socialistic program is a welfare boondoggle for lazy people who don't want to work.
Go to
Jul 30, 2019 15:00:38   #
debeda wrote:
Farm aid is nothing new, for many different reasons. And why do you compare social security and Medicare which are paid into, to this? Many people would need to live to 110 just to get the money they paid in and their employers paid in on their behalf BACK. Forget 50 years of interest



So, one asks: Can you collect more social security than you paid in?

And the answer is:

Most lower-wage workers receive more in benefits than they pay in taxes. ... But the trust fund is set to run out in 2033, after which the program will only be able to pay about three-quarters of promised benefits, according to the Social Security trustees.Apr 14, 2013
Social Security: Many pay more in taxes than they'll get back - Business
https://money.cnn.com/2013/04/14/news/economy/social-security-benefits/index.html
Search for: Can you collect more social security than you paid in?

Because most people get more than they put in is why the pot is diminishing. If people got less money than they put in, there would be no shortfall in the next decade as is predicted. Of course, Congress' taking money out for other uses of the years has not help stabilize the fund.
Go to
Page: <<prev 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ... 42 next>>
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.