Zonie63
Posts: 2826
Joined: 4/25/2011
From: The Old Pueblo
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Quit changing the goalposts. What you said was
Now, who's being uncivil? You keep accusing me of changing the goalposts when it's you who is doing that.
quote:
quote:
Then there's China, which was a total mess for the first half of the 20th century. Japan had them on the ropes all during WW2, yet look at how powerful they became in a very short time after the 1949 Revolution.
Please demonstrate to me how powerful they became a short time after the 1949 Revolution.
You've heard of the Korean War, haven't you? A few years earlier, they were losing badly to Japan in WW2. Right after the Revolution, they fought against the United Nations and fought them to a standstill. They sent the Nationalist government fleeing to Taiwan. I would say that they performed much more effectively as a nation than they did before. There, point proven. Now, do you have anything to counter with it? Where is YOUR proof that China was a paradise under Chiang Kai-Shek. Your contention is that they were worse off under socialism, so where is your proof?
quote:
I've already demonstrated they weren't economically powerful. I've demonstrated they weren't economically powerful.
I've cited that they killed millions of people during Mao's great leap forward.
And I've documented that their economy (and their military might) only started to take off after Deng Xiao Peng's reforms in the 80's.
China had their first nuclear test in 1964, just four years after France. I would say that's pretty powerful. In any case, it's certainly better than what the Chiang regime could come up with, so further proof. They were a powerhouse while Mao was still alive, which is the reason Nixon visited them and recognized them over Taiwan.
And these things are pretty well known and should have been known to you. The fact that you feign ignorance about things every adult should know is just totally dishonest. You KNEW what I was talking about and yet you still acted like you didn't. Christ, if I told you that rain was wet, you would say "Where is your evidence?"
And then you have the damn gall to accuse me of changing the goalposts? You are totally dishonest.
quote:
You, on the other hand - have only repeated again and again that things got better - with no evidence. In what way did things get better?
Evidence man - which you are still lacking.
I will be happy to shoot down every single one of your examples - but lets deal with one at a time.
Additionally, its dishonest of you to attempt to shift the argument. I never said China was a paradise 1940-1949.
Well, you didn't say it wasn't either. In fact, you didn't say anything about it, which you should have (if you're trying to have an honest discussion). You kept trying to deflect and bring up irrelevancies like Venezuela.
quote:
You said China got powerful - how?
Asked and answered.
quote:
As for getting powerful - I think the record pretty clearly shows Japan got more powerful, more quickly. Starting with fewer resources, smaller country, and fewer people.
That's only because they got all their help from the West, which has propped up their regime and maintained their defense ever since. China had to do it by themselves.
quote:
quote:
Your position was that countries became worse off under socialism than they were before. All you've come up with as evidence is to cite Venezuela, but that doesn't even count, since there wasn't an actual revolution or overthrow of the previous government.
Really?
Uh -says who? You said
quote:
One thing you really can't deny is that, wherever a country has overthrown its previous capitalist regime and implemented socialism, they were still far better off than they were under the previous regime.
Did you miss the word "overthrown" in that sentence. Do you know what "overthrow" means?
quote:
Funny. Chavez called it a revolution. So does Wiki. In fact he specifically called it a socialist revolution. I quote:
quote:
Following the adoption of a new constitution in 1999, Chávez focused on enacting social reforms as part of the Bolivarian Revolution, which is a type of socialist revolution.
So, yes it was a revolution - and no, they weren't and aren't better off.
Just because he called it that, doesn't make it so.
quote:
Your statement is.. ridiculous. I could also point to East Germany, Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Rumania, Hungary, Serbia
Again, none of these were revolutionary overthrows. Talk about changing the goalposts. Sheesh!
On the other hand, this brings up an earlier point (which you also failed to address). How did all of these countries fall under Soviet domination, a socialist country which (according to you) should have been far worse off than they were under the Tsar? And yet again, you ignored another obvious point I made, comparing Tsarist Russia's dismal performance against Germany in WW1 versus the Soviet victory in WW2. They also made vast improvements in the areas of infrastructure, industry, education. Unlike the backward Tsarist regime, by the end of WW2, Western governments had feared them immensely to the point where we had a Cold War lasting more than 40 years. McCarthyites (which you would have been, I'm sure) went into a Chicken Little panic and went after innocent Americans to persecute them for their political views. All because of a country which (according to your analysis) should have gotten much worse and helpless.
quote:
Every single place where standards of living rose dramatically when socialist nations were overthrown, and replaced with capitalist ones.
They were under foreign domination. They didn't like that, and I don't advocate that myself. Again, this is another dishonest attempt to change the goalposts.
quote:
quote:
Do you seriously need edification as to the horrific conditions of factories in England during the early 19th century?
Can you quit changing the goal posts? I never said there weren't sweatshops. You said capitalists lacked moral compasses - I showed you where many different capitalists HAD moral compasses.
All you told me was what their religion was. That doesn't prove anything. Their moral compass (or lack thereof) was demonstrated in their actions, not in what they say.
quote:
Showing that some capitalists had moral compasses is sufficient to disprove your blanket statement that capitalists lack moral compasses. Just like I would never claim all socialists lack moral compasses, although most of them do.
No, they don't, and you haven't done thing one to demonstrate this.
If they did have a moral compass, then there would have been no uprisings, strikebreakers, labor unrest, etc. (And point of order, an internal uprising is not the same thing as a war between nations.)
You're the one who keeps complaining about Big Gov interfering in the private sector, but that's only because the morally-bankrupt capitalists gave them no other choice. The primary reason why the United States is such a great and powerful nation today is largely due to that government intervention that you decry so much. While some might joke about their grandparents' stories of having to walk to school barefoot in the snow, it bears out the fact that so many families back then had to struggle in squalor and misery. It wasn't until FDR that things improved markedly for the average American.
quote:
What you infer has not a damn thing to do with what I imply.
I said I don't like mobs - taking by force or by law. So did the founders - this is why we have a bill of rights - to guarantee some rights that would be extraordinarily difficult to take away.
If they're taking by law and operating within the law (which includes the Bill of Rights), then they're hardly a "mob," now are they?
But while we're on the subject, perhaps you might look at one of Reagan's favorite laws: The Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 which led to an increase in property seizures against people who were only suspected of committing crimes. If this practice is accepted by the Patron Saint of Conservative Capitalism, then I don't see how you have much of a leg to stand on here.
quote:
Once again you make an accusation without a hint of credible support. Private sector (business) does not rule. It is not a mob. It has no authority to rule, no ability to rule.
Except for organized crime and other underground, underhanded dealings. Stop being so naive.
quote:
Capitalism is a form of GOVERNMENT. Google it. Your definition is without support, idiosyncratic to you.
Okay, here it is from Google:
Capitalism
"an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state."
Note the words "controlled by." You're suggesting that capitalists have no control at all in our country, and this is absolutely false. It is often said that money controls the electoral processes, so this innocent routine of yours to suggest that capitalists are powerless and are nothing more than a bunch of innocent choir boys is utterly ludicrous.
quote:
Another ridiculous definition defined only by you. Do you suppose that if a country doubles in population and GDP that the economy has not grown? Of course it has.
Not if it doesn't trickle down. A country's true economic well-being is defined by how well those at the bottom live, not those at the top. Every country has rich people and can twist numbers around to claim there's "economic growth," but if such growth is not seen or enjoyed by the middle class, then it's meaningless.
quote:
As for the rest of it - not only are your hypothesis wrong - so are your figures. While it is true that hourly wages, adjusted by inflation have been stagnant - hourly wages are not the only story, are they.
Yes, they are.
quote:
The point of civil debate is you make a point and support it with evidence.
And what do you know about civil debate? Not much, it seems. You seem to have a knack of pissing off nearly everybody in this forum. I, on the other hand, have been complimented numerous times on my polite and civil demeanor. However, I'll admit that you've been testing my patience in this thread.
quote:
You've multiple times made the statement that executives are leaches, worthless, and bring no value to the american economy.
So what? They weren't statements directed at any individual here, including you.
quote:
I'm asking you - as part of a civil debate - to prove or at least support your assertion - or concede you are wrong.
Suppose a company making 4 mil a year hires an executive - and pays 1 mil a year. But now the company is making 8 mil a year. Most people would say the executive was not only doing a good job, but he would have earned his salary.
"Most people" would say that, huh?
quote:
I get that you have class envy - thats fine. But prove your point man.
Why should I? They're the ones who claim that they're "worth it." Why don't they (or you) prove it? In contrast, I would say that a neurosurgeon or a scientist might deserve a comfortable salary, but even then, it's within a reasonable degree based on the amount of education and work required.
In contrast, if a fast-talking con man is able to persuade suckers into buying swamp land in Florida and makes a lot of money in the process, that may be your idea of "earning it," but it adds absolutely nothing to the aggregate economy. It's just a sucker's game, and I'm not falling for it.
Based on your logic, you would say that Miley Cyrus is worth more to America than Thomas Edison or Albert Einstein or any number of countless others who actually produced something of value. Your kind of thinking is going to be disastrous for America in the long run, if we're not already past the point of no return.
quote:
So you assert time and again without evidence.
Look, do I have to write a whole essay just because you weren't paying attention in history class? Have you ever heard of the Civil War? No, I guess you haven't.
quote:
We actually agree on that, somewhat. The whole donald trump phenomenon is because conservatives are sick of republicans not honoring their limited government schtick. Come join the parade.
I will give Trump some credit in that he's opposed NAFTA and other globalist notions which have hurt America. But then, Jerry Brown and Ralph Nader were also against NAFTA, and the poor treatment they received by their own party is the central reason I'm no longer a Democrat.
quote:
Why on earth would you ask the people who work in a factory to judge the worth of executives.
A corporations assets belong to the SHAREHOLDERS. Its their money. Their call.
The workers know first-hand what's going on inside the company and can see for themselves. Don't you think the shareholders could benefit from listening to what they have to say?
quote:
As for "council of people's deputies". Nobody in the US talks like that.
Yeah, I know. I just threw that in myself.
quote:
The only place this term is usually used is communist countries. Russia, estonia, germany etc. Which is why I think you're paid communist provocateur, pretending to be from here. You say things that have no bearing in reality - like rent being unearned income, executives being leeches - whereas people that actually live here- while they may not agree with the situation here - would make more rational statements.
Damn, you mean I could get paid for writing this stuff? Who within the communist apparatus do you think would pay me? I'll have to send them a letter and tell them that I'm "worth it." 
I've been working in non-profit social services most of my life. I've devoted most of my life to helping people who are less fortunate. It may not pay as well as an executive, but I've never really cared all that much about money. All I really care about is honor, truth, freedom, and justice for all.
quote:
Slightly before 1900 for the most part. All immigrants - mostly with just the clothes on their back.
I find that most asshole liberals are pretentious pricks that date their ancestry to the 17th century.
Do you get the point? Comment uncalled for in civil debate.
Look, you're the one who brought it up and opened it up as an issue. Only you know why you did that, but if you think for a moment that you're somehow "more American" than I am, then I might have to remind you of this.
< Message edited by Zonie63 -- 4/21/2016 4:47:03 AM >
|
RE: Damn Welfare Queens! - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread