Al Franken takes dummy Ted Cruz to School

[kaz]

My basic principle is simply 'fairness'.
According to you that makes me a socialist that advocates tyranny.

Yes it does. It's not government's job to make life fair, and they never do that. They use fairness as an excuse to commit tyranny. Democrats are not liberals, you are authoritarian leftists. Marxists. If you actually read the communist manifesto without blinders on, you would realize that you agree with it. The goals and the rhetoric to justify them. They boil down to that it's the government's job to make life fair, and they will decide what fairness is.

 

[idb]

...one can be either free-market or socialist...apparently there can be no such thing as a nuanced mix which ... .

LOL! Oh now THAT has always fascinated me, this notion of the 'mixing' of ideas which promote the free exchange of goods and services to the mutual benefit (profit) of both parties and those which oppose such.


Would ya take a moment to express the principles to which you adhere within your 'capitalist' side and the principles which you feel are central to your socialist mix?

It's the real world.
Look around you.

So what you're saying is that despite being politely requested to simply state the principles which you recognize as being central to your desire to mix diametrically opposed ideas, you have absolutely NO means to identify any principles which get anywhere near to the center of what stands as your 'reasoning'.

LOL!

Anyone shocked by an advocate of 'mixing' freedom with tyranny having no kinship with principle?

As always, the addled 'centrist' is just a Leftist, who lacks the courage to commit.

Deceit, FRAUD and Ignorance... the fundamental elements of socialism.

Your use of the words 'freedom' and 'tyranny' to describe conservative and liberal principles reveals you as an uncritical thinker.

My basic principle is simply 'fairness'.
According to you that makes me a socialist that advocates tyranny.

It's important to you that everyone identify with a tribe...we all have to have an unwavering ideology and any deviation from that - even in the face of new evidence or compelling argument - represents treason against your tribe.
Fair enough...enjoy your certainty on everything.

That's one of the most succinct summaries of the right wing mindset that I've ever seen. Well done.

It's frustrating

When did I say that I'm not a Marxist?

Fair enough, I thought you were denying it, you just wanted to know when you tipped me off? It's your rhetoric and positions.

When did I say that the government should control the internet?

Here you go

I stated support for net neutrality

That isn't a support for government control of the internet.
Why does it have to be black or white to you?
Your position is that either the government is out of the internet or it's 'controlling' it.
There's no middle ground with you.

What a wonderful world of certainty you inhabit.

The Marxist objects to extremism, that's a hoot.

Government has no legitimate power to dictate to Americans what we do with our own assets. Play all the word games you want, but when they do that, they are controlling it. We are only allowed to do that which they decide we can. They determine what they can decide and what we can, that is control.

And when the only government involvement is for the maintenance of equal access for everyone?
Is that 'control'?

Let's face it...complete deregulation and reliance on the inherent fairness of an unfettered free market has been a failure.

 

[idb]

My basic principle is simply 'fairness'.
According to you that makes me a socialist that advocates tyranny.

Yes it does. It's not government's job to make life fair, and they never do that. They use fairness as an excuse to commit tyranny. Democrats are not liberals, you are authoritarian leftists. Marxists. If you actually read the communist manifesto without blinders on, you would realize that you agree with it. The goals and the rhetoric to justify them. They boil down to that it's the government's job to make life fair, and they will decide what fairness is.

Thank you...summed up beautifully.
Let me paraphrase.
"Fuck everyone else...I'm doing OK"

 

[JoeNormal]

My basic principle is simply 'fairness'.
According to you that makes me a socialist that advocates tyranny.

Yes it does. It's not government's job to make life fair, and they never do that. They use fairness as an excuse to commit tyranny. Democrats are not liberals, you are authoritarian leftists. Marxists. If you actually read the communist manifesto without blinders on, you would realize that you agree with it. The goals and the rhetoric to justify them. They boil down to that it's the government's job to make life fair, and they will decide what fairness is.

Thank you...summed up beautifully.
Let me paraphrase.
"Fuck everyone else...I'm doing OK"

You might say it's the Libertarian Manifesto.

 

[kaz]

And when the only government involvement is for the maintenance of equal access for everyone?
Is that 'control'?

Dude, that's a pure Marxist position. Everyone must get the same regardless of their ability and willingness to pay. And yes, government "regulating" to restrict businesses what to do with their own assets is control.

And Let's face it...complete deregulation and reliance on the inherent fairness of an unfettered free market has been a failure.

You're not "facing" anything, you're justifying what you want, you're justifying your authoritarian leftism with shallowly veiled excuses to do what you want. What has been a failure is government control, the free markets work fine. It's government that screws it up.

 

[kaz]

My basic principle is simply 'fairness'.
According to you that makes me a socialist that advocates tyranny.

Yes it does. It's not government's job to make life fair, and they never do that. They use fairness as an excuse to commit tyranny. Democrats are not liberals, you are authoritarian leftists. Marxists. If you actually read the communist manifesto without blinders on, you would realize that you agree with it. The goals and the rhetoric to justify them. They boil down to that it's the government's job to make life fair, and they will decide what fairness is.

Thank you...summed up beautifully.
Let me paraphrase.
"Fuck everyone else...I'm doing OK"

If I get my way, you are free to make your own choices. If you get your way, my choices are removed and I have to do it your way. And that's me being selfish, sure Comrade, I'm the selfish one.

 

[kaz]

My basic principle is simply 'fairness'.
According to you that makes me a socialist that advocates tyranny.

Yes it does. It's not government's job to make life fair, and they never do that. They use fairness as an excuse to commit tyranny. Democrats are not liberals, you are authoritarian leftists. Marxists. If you actually read the communist manifesto without blinders on, you would realize that you agree with it. The goals and the rhetoric to justify them. They boil down to that it's the government's job to make life fair, and they will decide what fairness is.

Thank you...summed up beautifully.
Let me paraphrase.
"Fuck everyone else...I'm doing OK"

BTW, fuck wad, you use quotes when you are quoting me. I did not say that, stop being a dick.

 

[kaz]

My basic principle is simply 'fairness'.
According to you that makes me a socialist that advocates tyranny.

Yes it does. It's not government's job to make life fair, and they never do that. They use fairness as an excuse to commit tyranny. Democrats are not liberals, you are authoritarian leftists. Marxists. If you actually read the communist manifesto without blinders on, you would realize that you agree with it. The goals and the rhetoric to justify them. They boil down to that it's the government's job to make life fair, and they will decide what fairness is.

Thank you...summed up beautifully.
Let me paraphrase.
"Fuck everyone else...I'm doing OK"

You might say it's the Libertarian Manifesto.

Liberals calling other people selfish, that's classic. I want to pay my own bills, you want me to pay yours for you. But I'm too selfish to agree to that.

Criminals always have pathetic excuses to justify your crimes. Using a gun to commit armed robbery is a crime regardless of how a vote turns out.

 

[idb]

And when the only government involvement is for the maintenance of equal access for everyone?
Is that 'control'?

Dude, that's a pure Marxist position. Everyone must get the same regardless of their ability and willingness to pay. And yes, government "regulating" to restrict businesses what to do with their own assets is control.

And Let's face it...complete deregulation and reliance on the inherent fairness of an unfettered free market has been a failure.

You're not "facing" anything, you're justifying what you want, you're justifying your authoritarian leftism with shallowly veiled excuses to do what you want. What has been a failure is government control, the free markets work fine. It's government that screws it up.

The idealogue's Alamo.
"It's not that the Free Market has failed...it's that it wasn't free enough."
It's lucky that the evil government were able to bail out so many of the poor, oppressed free marketeers.

Fair and equal access to the market is essential for it to work properly and in the best interests of everyone.
Nothing Marxist about it.

How is it in Utopia these days anyway?

 

[JoeNormal]

My basic principle is simply 'fairness'.
According to you that makes me a socialist that advocates tyranny.

Yes it does. It's not government's job to make life fair, and they never do that. They use fairness as an excuse to commit tyranny. Democrats are not liberals, you are authoritarian leftists. Marxists. If you actually read the communist manifesto without blinders on, you would realize that you agree with it. The goals and the rhetoric to justify them. They boil down to that it's the government's job to make life fair, and they will decide what fairness is.

Thank you...summed up beautifully.
Let me paraphrase.
"Fuck everyone else...I'm doing OK"

You might say it's the Libertarian Manifesto.

Liberals calling other people selfish, that's classic. I want to pay my own bills, you want me to pay yours for you. But I'm too selfish to agree to that.

Criminals always have pathetic excuses to justify your crimes. Using a gun to commit armed robbery is a crime regardless of how a vote turns out.

Oh, really? I want you to pay my bills for me? Hmm, what a brilliant idea!

Jeezus, you are so offended when someone doesn't know every nuance of your precious ideology yet you don't appear to make the slightest effort to learn anyone else's. Hyperbole much? This is about as retarded as it gets.

 

[kaz]

Jeezus, you are so offended when someone doesn't know every nuance of your precious ideology yet you don't appear to make the slightest effort to learn anyone else's. Hyperbole much? This is about as retarded as it gets.

Expecting you to know we we are not the same as Republicans is expecting you to know "every nuance" of libertarianism. And I am the one using hyperbole. Can't make up the shit you actually believe.

 

[kaz]

And when the only government involvement is for the maintenance of equal access for everyone?
Is that 'control'?

Dude, that's a pure Marxist position. Everyone must get the same regardless of their ability and willingness to pay. And yes, government "regulating" to restrict businesses what to do with their own assets is control.

And Let's face it...complete deregulation and reliance on the inherent fairness of an unfettered free market has been a failure.

You're not "facing" anything, you're justifying what you want, you're justifying your authoritarian leftism with shallowly veiled excuses to do what you want. What has been a failure is government control, the free markets work fine. It's government that screws it up.

The idealogue's Alamo.
"It's not that the Free Market has failed...it's that it wasn't free enough."
It's lucky that the evil government were able to bail out so many of the poor, oppressed free marketeers.

Fair and equal access to the market is essential for it to work properly and in the best interests of everyone.
Nothing Marxist about it.

How is it in Utopia these days anyway?

The Marxists Alamo, the more government you force on us and the worse things get, the more that proves we need more government. And you actually believe that I'm sure.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The idealogue's Alamo.
"It's not that the Free Market has failed...it's that it wasn't free enough."
It's lucky that the evil government were able to bail out so many of the poor, oppressed free marketeers.

Fair and equal access to the market is essential for it to work properly and in the best interests of everyone.
Nothing Marxist about it.

How is it in Utopia these days anyway?

So, the "free market" has failed in that people living in free market nations enjoy better lives with better food, shelter, transportation, entertainment, and life expectancy than any humans in all of history?

My only hope is that when you trade the prospect of reward as the means to motivate people to work for the whip - since there is no other option, that your hide is the first to experience what you propose.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

...one can be either free-market or socialist...apparently there can be no such thing as a nuanced mix which ... .

LOL! Oh now THAT has always fascinated me, this notion of the 'mixing' of ideas which promote the free exchange of goods and services to the mutual benefit (profit) of both parties and those which oppose such.


Would ya take a moment to express the principles to which you adhere within your 'capitalist' side and the principles which you feel are central to your socialist mix?

It's the real world.
Look around you.

So what you're saying is that despite being politely requested to simply state the principles which you recognize as being central to your desire to mix diametrically opposed ideas, you have absolutely NO means to identify any principles which get anywhere near to the center of what stands as your 'reasoning'.

LOL!

Anyone shocked by an advocate of 'mixing' freedom with tyranny having no kinship with principle?

As always, the addled 'centrist' is just a Leftist, who lacks the courage to commit.

Deceit, FRAUD and Ignorance... the fundamental elements of socialism.

Your use of the words 'freedom' and 'tyranny' to describe conservative and liberal principles reveals you as an uncritical thinker.

My basic principle is simply 'fairness'.

I wasn't aware that 'fairness' is a principle.

A principle is a natural law... a fundamental truth or, a proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior, it is a chain of reasoning which defines predictable outcomes.

Actuarial lending principles... for instance, when applied these provide that where value is loaned, it is highly probable that the debt will be satisfactorily serviced (that means that the money loaned will be repaid within the terms of the agreement around which the loan was originated.

Now... the US Left spent several decades coercing the Financial markets to set aside the soundly reasoned actuarial lending principles for your would-be principle of 'fairness'. What's more they defined 'fariness' as "Everyone deserves to own their home".

Of course, in truth... those who 'deserve' to own a home meet the fundamental requirements which the principles of actuarial lending prescribe, thus the likelihood that those folks will repay the loan required to secure the mortgage necessary to buy the home... . So we can see that 'fairness'; and particularly the perverse understanding of 'fairness' as applied to that particular circumstance was inappropriate and it was inappropriate because 'fairness' is not a principle and as such 'fairness' cannot sustain a circumstance which can only be sustained through adherence to sound principle.

So tell me, how do YOU define your principle: "Fairness"?

 

[idb]

My basic principle is simply 'fairness'.
According to you that makes me a socialist that advocates tyranny.

Yes it does. It's not government's job to make life fair, and they never do that. They use fairness as an excuse to commit tyranny. Democrats are not liberals, you are authoritarian leftists. Marxists. If you actually read the communist manifesto without blinders on, you would realize that you agree with it. The goals and the rhetoric to justify them. They boil down to that it's the government's job to make life fair, and they will decide what fairness is.

Thank you...summed up beautifully.
Let me paraphrase.
"Fuck everyone else...I'm doing OK"

BTW, fuck wad, you use quotes when you are quoting me. I did not say that, stop being a dick.

Poor thing.
I've offended you.

The idealogue's Alamo.
"It's not that the Free Market has failed...it's that it wasn't free enough."
It's lucky that the evil government were able to bail out so many of the poor, oppressed free marketeers.

Fair and equal access to the market is essential for it to work properly and in the best interests of everyone.
Nothing Marxist about it.

How is it in Utopia these days anyway?

So, the "free market" has failed in that people living in free market nations enjoy better lives with better food, shelter, transportation, entertainment, and life expectancy than any humans in all of history?

My only hope is that when you trade the prospect of reward as the means to motivate people to work for the whip - since there is no other option, that your hide is the first to experience what you propose.

Are there any countries with a completely unregulated free market?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Are there any countries with a completely unregulated free market?

Even in the most perverse instances of Europe, the market economies have returned the best standard of living people in the area have ever experienced.

Can you point to any authoritarian/socialist system that has improved the lives of those enslaved under it?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Poor thing.
I've offended you.

I've followed this discussion and there is no evidence within the record of such, which could reasonably be used to infer that you've 'offended' Kaz.

This in contrast to the Everest of the piled evidence which demonstrates you've humiliated yourself.

And your inability to recognize such notwithstanding.

 

[idb]

...one can be either free-market or socialist...apparently there can be no such thing as a nuanced mix which ... .

LOL! Oh now THAT has always fascinated me, this notion of the 'mixing' of ideas which promote the free exchange of goods and services to the mutual benefit (profit) of both parties and those which oppose such.


Would ya take a moment to express the principles to which you adhere within your 'capitalist' side and the principles which you feel are central to your socialist mix?

It's the real world.
Look around you.

So what you're saying is that despite being politely requested to simply state the principles which you recognize as being central to your desire to mix diametrically opposed ideas, you have absolutely NO means to identify any principles which get anywhere near to the center of what stands as your 'reasoning'.

LOL!

Anyone shocked by an advocate of 'mixing' freedom with tyranny having no kinship with principle?

As always, the addled 'centrist' is just a Leftist, who lacks the courage to commit.

Deceit, FRAUD and Ignorance... the fundamental elements of socialism.

Your use of the words 'freedom' and 'tyranny' to describe conservative and liberal principles reveals you as an uncritical thinker.

My basic principle is simply 'fairness'.

I wasn't aware that 'fairness' is a principle.

A principle is a natural law... a fundamental truth or, a proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior, it is a chain of reasoning which defines predictable outcomes.

Actuarial lending principles... for instance, when applied these provide that where value is loaned, it is highly probable that the debt will be satisfactorily serviced (that means that the money loaned will be repaid within the terms of the agreement around which the loan was originated.

Now... the US Left spent several decades coercing the Financial markets to set aside the soundly reasoned actuarial lending principles for your would-be principle of 'fairness'. What's more they defined 'fariness' as "Every deserves to own their home".

Of course, in truth... those who 'deserve' to own a home meet the fundamental requirements which the principles of actuarial lending prescribe, thus the likelihood that those folks will repay the loan required to secure the mortgage necessary to buy the home... . So we can see that 'fairness'; and particularly the perverse understanding of 'fairness' as applied to that particular circumstance was inappropriate and it was inappropriate because 'fairness' is not a principle and as such 'fairness' cannot sustain a circumstance which can only be sustained through adherence to sound principle.

So tell me, how do YOU define your principle: "Fairness"?

OK, a reasonable question.
I think that fairness as a principle of organising a society is that everyone is given the opportunity to rise to their maximum potential regardless of their starting position.
People should also not be denied access to basic services based on their ability to pay.
There's plenty of room to argue what these basic services should be.
This all goes both ways and there should be no acceptance of abuse of services and opportunities provided.

I think that a society has a duty to look after the least of it's citizens.

God, you're right...I'm a complete Pinko!

 

[idb]

Are there any countries with a completely unregulated free market?

Even in the most perverse instances of Europe, the market economies have returned the best standard of living people in the area have ever experienced.

Can you point to any authoritarian/socialist system that has improved the lives of those enslaved under it?

That's not an answer.

 

[idb]

Poor thing.
I've offended you.

I've followed this discussion and there is no evidence within the record of such, which could reasonably be used to infer that you've 'offended' Kaz.

This in contrast to the Everest of the piled evidence which demonstrates you've humiliated yourself.

And your inability to recognize such notwithstanding.

The fact that you've taken the time and trouble to write it down must make it true I suppose.