Why Do Democrats Want the Poor to Starve Just to Make It Easy for Illegals to Enter?

[Pumpkin Row]

As I said before, it's always the same, otherwise it's arbitrary and therefor has no meaning, and by extension language would have no meaning, which keeps it consistent. Your 'argument' is that because one or two of the screenshots I took had that tacked on, and you picked it out of the group, you therefor agree with it. Different websites choosing to keep it or remove it doesn't change the definition of the word, otherwise, again, it's arbitrary.
Yes, ask anyone whose narrative it suits, and they'll tell me that definitions change according to who you ask, how consistent.

You see, everything has to be consistent and non-contradictory, otherwise it's meaningless to argue about any of it. For example, anyone could conclude right now that everything you say is meaningless because in your last post, you just went from "It's now just fair capitalism" to "Yeah, now it's REGULATED" because you couldn't find anything to fit your erroneous claim. Similarly, ethics can't change from location to location based on the will of some ruler because that would make ethics arbitrary, and ethics would become meaningless, and that would allow someone to justify the holocaust.

Politicians tend to use words incorrectly because parrots like you will repeat it. For example, Dark Angel earlier mentioned that Liberal used to be those who opposed the State while Conservative was the statists. Then, in the 1930s, it was used to describe those who were Socialists, and therefor wanted the government to own the means of production. The misuse and conflation of words is just another method for people to make discourse into a confusing and meaningless mess.

All of that said, no, the definition did not change simply because a guy in Finland, and yes he is just a guy, misused the word, and one or two websites said "Or regulated". regardless of which you used, your usage was incorrect, because as I explained, definitions do not change, otherwise they are entirely meaningless.
You don't have to say I was right, the fact that you agreed with me and ignored the vast majority of my arguments while making no counterpoints whatsoever, and using no citations, shows that I'm right.

Given your exhibited comprehension level, I highly doubt you have a Masters in anything, however whether you do or not doesn't matter, because claiming some level of education is just an appeal to authority fallacy. Even if, hypothetically, you had the credentials that you claim, simply having those credentials isn't an argument and doesn't automatically make you right.

You are a great typing but you are absolutely idiotic. Of course definitions change idiot.

That's not an argument, that's a statement and an adhom. In order to refute my argument, you need to make an argument that definitions do change, however, I already explained how that makes the meanings arbitrary and therefor meaningless, so you'd have to refute that as well. If you can't debate, you have no reason to be here.

Well I also am a linguist and I speak French and Spanish and I'm telling you the meanings change over time and socialism is one of the best examples. France has had a Socialist Party since 1900 and a Communist Party since the twenties or something, and they know what they are doing with this stuff. There is a section in Wikipedia explaining the history of the definition and it is just what I have been telling you. Because it is well established fact.

Again, claiming you have specific credentials is not an argument, at best it's an appeal to authority fallacy.

Your example is that of the word being used differently, not of a definition changing. Specific politicians and their talking point parrots misusing a word doesn't change the definition of the word, much like hordes of uneducated people misusing the word "literally" doesn't cause it to mean "not literally". If this were the case, language would cease to have meaning, due to violating the consistency principal and the law of non-contradiction.

As I said earlier, you'll need an actual argument here, not just saying 'look, I have a major in astrophysics, I know what I'm talking about', and 'look, other people use the word wrong, therefor the definition changes'. No, you need to tell me WHY and HOW a definition can be changed instead of asserting that it can and telling me other people don't know the English language, while throwing out random credentials that you may or may not have.

My example is of a word being used differently, you idiot? That means the definition changed-- please go away you make no sense.

Using a word differently doesn't change the definition, otherwise all definitions would be arbitrary and debate would cease to exist, because nobody would know what anyone was saying. Your examples have been mostly of politicians, but politicians have no more legitimacy to change the definition of a word than any other individual person. Either you don't want to understand, or everything I'm saying is just flying right over your head.

The example of 'Literally" and "Not literally" was used because they match your assertion. Some people use the word "Literally" as "Figuratively", much like you're trying to use "Socialist" as "Not Socialist". Certain people or some number of people(Appeal to authority and appeal to popularity fallacies respectively) misusing a word does not change that word, and do not change logic, which is why I mentioned the Consistency Principle and the Law of Noncontradiction.

 

[francoHFW]

You are a great typing but you are absolutely idiotic. Of course definitions change idiot.

That's not an argument, that's a statement and an adhom. In order to refute my argument, you need to make an argument that definitions do change, however, I already explained how that makes the meanings arbitrary and therefor meaningless, so you'd have to refute that as well. If you can't debate, you have no reason to be here.

Well I also am a linguist and I speak French and Spanish and I'm telling you the meanings change over time and socialism is one of the best examples. France has had a Socialist Party since 1900 and a Communist Party since the twenties or something, and they know what they are doing with this stuff. There is a section in Wikipedia explaining the history of the definition and it is just what I have been telling you. Because it is well established fact.

Again, claiming you have specific credentials is not an argument, at best it's an appeal to authority fallacy.

Your example is that of the word being used differently, not of a definition changing. Specific politicians and their talking point parrots misusing a word doesn't change the definition of the word, much like hordes of uneducated people misusing the word "literally" doesn't cause it to mean "not literally". If this were the case, language would cease to have meaning, due to violating the consistency principal and the law of non-contradiction.

As I said earlier, you'll need an actual argument here, not just saying 'look, I have a major in astrophysics, I know what I'm talking about', and 'look, other people use the word wrong, therefor the definition changes'. No, you need to tell me WHY and HOW a definition can be changed instead of asserting that it can and telling me other people don't know the English language, while throwing out random credentials that you may or may not have.

My example is of a word being used differently, you idiot? That means the definition changed-- please go away you make no sense.

Using a word differently doesn't change the definition, otherwise all definitions would be arbitrary and debate would cease to exist, because nobody would know what anyone was saying. Your examples have been mostly of politicians, but politicians have no more legitimacy to change the definition of a word than any other individual person. Either you don't want to understand, or everything I'm saying is just flying right over your head.

The example of 'Literally" and "Not literally" was used because they match your assertion. Some people use the word "Literally" as "Figuratively", much like you're trying to use "Socialist" as "Not Socialist". Certain people or some number of people(Appeal to authority and appeal to popularity fallacies respectively) misusing a word does not change that word, and do not change logic, which is why I mentioned the Consistency Principle and the Law of Noncontradiction.

As Wikipedia and history books witness, there have been three definitions of socialism predominant. First the original Marxist theory, proven wrong in many respects. Second socialism as defined by the USSR when people believed there was freedom and a form of democracy involved. When that was proven wrong, socialism became what the whole world except GOP dupe world knows it as, always democratic fair capitalism with a good safety net. Wake up and smell the coffee LOL.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

That's not an argument, that's a statement and an adhom. In order to refute my argument, you need to make an argument that definitions do change, however, I already explained how that makes the meanings arbitrary and therefor meaningless, so you'd have to refute that as well. If you can't debate, you have no reason to be here.

Well I also am a linguist and I speak French and Spanish and I'm telling you the meanings change over time and socialism is one of the best examples. France has had a Socialist Party since 1900 and a Communist Party since the twenties or something, and they know what they are doing with this stuff. There is a section in Wikipedia explaining the history of the definition and it is just what I have been telling you. Because it is well established fact.

Again, claiming you have specific credentials is not an argument, at best it's an appeal to authority fallacy.

Your example is that of the word being used differently, not of a definition changing. Specific politicians and their talking point parrots misusing a word doesn't change the definition of the word, much like hordes of uneducated people misusing the word "literally" doesn't cause it to mean "not literally". If this were the case, language would cease to have meaning, due to violating the consistency principal and the law of non-contradiction.

As I said earlier, you'll need an actual argument here, not just saying 'look, I have a major in astrophysics, I know what I'm talking about', and 'look, other people use the word wrong, therefor the definition changes'. No, you need to tell me WHY and HOW a definition can be changed instead of asserting that it can and telling me other people don't know the English language, while throwing out random credentials that you may or may not have.

My example is of a word being used differently, you idiot? That means the definition changed-- please go away you make no sense.

Using a word differently doesn't change the definition, otherwise all definitions would be arbitrary and debate would cease to exist, because nobody would know what anyone was saying. Your examples have been mostly of politicians, but politicians have no more legitimacy to change the definition of a word than any other individual person. Either you don't want to understand, or everything I'm saying is just flying right over your head.

The example of 'Literally" and "Not literally" was used because they match your assertion. Some people use the word "Literally" as "Figuratively", much like you're trying to use "Socialist" as "Not Socialist". Certain people or some number of people(Appeal to authority and appeal to popularity fallacies respectively) misusing a word does not change that word, and do not change logic, which is why I mentioned the Consistency Principle and the Law of Noncontradiction.

As Wikipedia and history books witness, there have been three definitions of socialism predominant. First the original Marxist theory, proven wrong in many respects. Second socialism as defined by the USSR when people believed there was freedom and a form of democracy involved. When that was proven wrong, socialism became what the whole world except GOP dupe world knows it as, always democratic fair capitalism with a good safety net. Wake up and smell the coffee LOL.

Difference in usage of the word is not difference in definition. You also don't bother to give me any citations for the history books you're referring to, and you didn't bother explaining how or why the definition can be changed. In other words, you're just making a baseless assertion.

Here, I'll dumb it down as much as humanly possible: If some random individual or politician could change the definition of a word according to their feelings, North Korea would be the current faithful application of Democracy, since they call themselves "The Democratic People's Republic of Korea".

I'd keep explaining it in logical terms, but it keeps flying right over your head, so I just decided to point at some jack-boots for you to lick, since it's the only terms you seem to think in. You know, since Logic, the "Literally" example, and the consequences of such a method, all seemed to fly right over your head.

 

[francoHFW]

Well I also am a linguist and I speak French and Spanish and I'm telling you the meanings change over time and socialism is one of the best examples. France has had a Socialist Party since 1900 and a Communist Party since the twenties or something, and they know what they are doing with this stuff. There is a section in Wikipedia explaining the history of the definition and it is just what I have been telling you. Because it is well established fact.

Again, claiming you have specific credentials is not an argument, at best it's an appeal to authority fallacy.

Your example is that of the word being used differently, not of a definition changing. Specific politicians and their talking point parrots misusing a word doesn't change the definition of the word, much like hordes of uneducated people misusing the word "literally" doesn't cause it to mean "not literally". If this were the case, language would cease to have meaning, due to violating the consistency principal and the law of non-contradiction.

As I said earlier, you'll need an actual argument here, not just saying 'look, I have a major in astrophysics, I know what I'm talking about', and 'look, other people use the word wrong, therefor the definition changes'. No, you need to tell me WHY and HOW a definition can be changed instead of asserting that it can and telling me other people don't know the English language, while throwing out random credentials that you may or may not have.

My example is of a word being used differently, you idiot? That means the definition changed-- please go away you make no sense.

Using a word differently doesn't change the definition, otherwise all definitions would be arbitrary and debate would cease to exist, because nobody would know what anyone was saying. Your examples have been mostly of politicians, but politicians have no more legitimacy to change the definition of a word than any other individual person. Either you don't want to understand, or everything I'm saying is just flying right over your head.

The example of 'Literally" and "Not literally" was used because they match your assertion. Some people use the word "Literally" as "Figuratively", much like you're trying to use "Socialist" as "Not Socialist". Certain people or some number of people(Appeal to authority and appeal to popularity fallacies respectively) misusing a word does not change that word, and do not change logic, which is why I mentioned the Consistency Principle and the Law of Noncontradiction.

As Wikipedia and history books witness, there have been three definitions of socialism predominant. First the original Marxist theory, proven wrong in many respects. Second socialism as defined by the USSR when people believed there was freedom and a form of democracy involved. When that was proven wrong, socialism became what the whole world except GOP dupe world knows it as, always democratic fair capitalism with a good safety net. Wake up and smell the coffee LOL.

Difference in usage of the word is not difference in definition. You also don't bother to give me any citations for the history books you're referring to, and you didn't bother explaining how or why the definition can be changed. In other words, you're just making a baseless assertion.

Here, I'll dumb it down as much as humanly possible: If some random individual or politician could change the definition of a word according to their feelings, North Korea would be the current faithful application of Democracy, since they call themselves "The Democratic People's Republic of Korea".

I'd keep explaining it in logical terms, but it keeps flying right over your head, so I just decided to point at some jack-boots for you to lick, since it's the only terms you seem to think in. You know, since Logic, the "Literally" example, and the consequences of such a method, all seemed to fly right over your head.

You can lead an idiot to the facts, but you can't make them drink. Your brain is anarchy, based on some article you read once lol... End of this year's lesson....

 

[Conservative65]

Millions could face severe cuts to food stamps due to government shutdown.

Why do the Left put illegals ahead of immigrants who follow our laws and the needs of Americans who are in need of help?

Never mind the food stamps, think of what you could do with the $110B you currently spent on illegal immigrants each bloody year.

Now if my math is correct, your government could literally hand out $11,000, in cash, to the poorest 10 MILLION Americans with that money.

That’d be a great deal. We build the wall and once it’s complete, the Federal Government cuts a check for $11,000 dollars for 10 million Americans.

Put that in writing, I’ll urge Congress to approve it.

Except we both know the mathematics would never support such a crazy statement.

Why don't those 10 million Americans do something to earn more money instead of begging for it?

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Again, claiming you have specific credentials is not an argument, at best it's an appeal to authority fallacy.

Your example is that of the word being used differently, not of a definition changing. Specific politicians and their talking point parrots misusing a word doesn't change the definition of the word, much like hordes of uneducated people misusing the word "literally" doesn't cause it to mean "not literally". If this were the case, language would cease to have meaning, due to violating the consistency principal and the law of non-contradiction.

As I said earlier, you'll need an actual argument here, not just saying 'look, I have a major in astrophysics, I know what I'm talking about', and 'look, other people use the word wrong, therefor the definition changes'. No, you need to tell me WHY and HOW a definition can be changed instead of asserting that it can and telling me other people don't know the English language, while throwing out random credentials that you may or may not have.

My example is of a word being used differently, you idiot? That means the definition changed-- please go away you make no sense.

Using a word differently doesn't change the definition, otherwise all definitions would be arbitrary and debate would cease to exist, because nobody would know what anyone was saying. Your examples have been mostly of politicians, but politicians have no more legitimacy to change the definition of a word than any other individual person. Either you don't want to understand, or everything I'm saying is just flying right over your head.

The example of 'Literally" and "Not literally" was used because they match your assertion. Some people use the word "Literally" as "Figuratively", much like you're trying to use "Socialist" as "Not Socialist". Certain people or some number of people(Appeal to authority and appeal to popularity fallacies respectively) misusing a word does not change that word, and do not change logic, which is why I mentioned the Consistency Principle and the Law of Noncontradiction.

As Wikipedia and history books witness, there have been three definitions of socialism predominant. First the original Marxist theory, proven wrong in many respects. Second socialism as defined by the USSR when people believed there was freedom and a form of democracy involved. When that was proven wrong, socialism became what the whole world except GOP dupe world knows it as, always democratic fair capitalism with a good safety net. Wake up and smell the coffee LOL.

Difference in usage of the word is not difference in definition. You also don't bother to give me any citations for the history books you're referring to, and you didn't bother explaining how or why the definition can be changed. In other words, you're just making a baseless assertion.

Here, I'll dumb it down as much as humanly possible: If some random individual or politician could change the definition of a word according to their feelings, North Korea would be the current faithful application of Democracy, since they call themselves "The Democratic People's Republic of Korea".

I'd keep explaining it in logical terms, but it keeps flying right over your head, so I just decided to point at some jack-boots for you to lick, since it's the only terms you seem to think in. You know, since Logic, the "Literally" example, and the consequences of such a method, all seemed to fly right over your head.

You can lead an idiot to the facts, but you can't make them drink. Your brain is anarchy, based on some article you read once lol... End of this year's lesson....

Yeah, funny, I've lead you to numerous facts this entire 'discussion', yet you've given me absolutely nothing in terms of argument. You claim to be right, yet your arguments basically amount to a politician or group of people using the word incorrectly, and can't tell me why or how that would supposedly change the definition, and despite believing this to be the case, you don't just remain consistent when I point out another case that apparently doesn't apply.

One way you can tell when a person is wrong is when their argument can't be applied consistently across the board, which is why it's clear that you're wrong here. You simply pick and choose what you accept based on your feelings, rather than based on logic. You spew adhoms and lie instead of arguing logically.

You're also so freaking clueless that you didn't recognize the basis for my argument, I even specified. My argument came from philosophy and logic, not an "article". I don't need someone to tell me what to think, unlike the talking point parrots that look up to the politicians as Gods and ask them what to think, I instead question everything, study, and inform myself. It's hilarious, because you're actually guilty of everything you accused me of, all you've cited at all was Wikipedia(Which is not accepted as a scholarly source by anything or anyone) and what you heard from some politicians, yet you accuse ME of reading a single article. It's downright baffling that anyone bothers to reply to you given your exhibited propensity for being dishonest and outright asserting something regardless of it being previously refuted a thousand times, and without actually explaining the logic and reasoning behind your position, or why something is supposedly the way you claim.

That's even leaving aside your repeated fallacies, appealing to authority and appealing to popularity, as if someone holding a position or sharing the position with some arbitrary number of people is some kind of evidence that it's correct.

In addition to that, you replied, repeatedly, to my clear and concise explanations with 1-2 sentences, then have the impudence to actually claim you've taught some kind of lesson. You old fart, your arguments were so weak and ignorant, I had to actually explain to you that your citation refutes your freaking argument. How about you actually read your damn sources? On top of that, you claim to be a teacher, yet your citation was freaking Wikipedia, a source accepted by no establishment or organization as a scholarly source, and this was while claiming "BOOOOOKS" without bothering to name a single solitary one.

If this is a damn lesson to you, I fear for the students you supposedly have, because your teaching quality thoroughly ensures that your hypothetical students would be left learning less than you, assuming you're capable of ingesting information at all, which is quite the assumption given how little you bothered to read of anything I typed, despite the fact that my positions and explanations are better defined and backed than any of the garbage you flung at the screen.

 

[francoHFW]

Millions could face severe cuts to food stamps due to government shutdown.

Why do the Left put illegals ahead of immigrants who follow our laws and the needs of Americans who are in need of help?

Never mind the food stamps, think of what you could do with the $110B you currently spent on illegal immigrants each bloody year.

Now if my math is correct, your government could literally hand out $11,000, in cash, to the poorest 10 MILLION Americans with that money.

That’d be a great deal. We build the wall and once it’s complete, the Federal Government cuts a check for $11,000 dollars for 10 million Americans.

Put that in writing, I’ll urge Congress to approve it.

Except we both know the mathematics would never support such a crazy statement.

Why don't those 10 million Americans do something to earn more money instead of begging for it?

Because they are mainly disabled elderly or children? And is it time to give amnesty to all the felons that can't get jobs? Most of whom it's about drugs or marijuana... What about it law & order idiots?

 

[Conservative65]

Millions could face severe cuts to food stamps due to government shutdown.

Why do the Left put illegals ahead of immigrants who follow our laws and the needs of Americans who are in need of help?

Never mind the food stamps, think of what you could do with the $110B you currently spent on illegal immigrants each bloody year.

Now if my math is correct, your government could literally hand out $11,000, in cash, to the poorest 10 MILLION Americans with that money.

That’d be a great deal. We build the wall and once it’s complete, the Federal Government cuts a check for $11,000 dollars for 10 million Americans.

Put that in writing, I’ll urge Congress to approve it.

Except we both know the mathematics would never support such a crazy statement.

Why don't those 10 million Americans do something to earn more money instead of begging for it?

Because they are mainly disabled elderly or children? And is it time to give amnesty to all the felons that can't get jobs? Most of whom it's about drugs or marijuana... What about it law & order idiots?

Why don't their fucking parents or family members do something to help them instead of begging for it? The taxpayers aren't their ATM nor do they hold any responsibility to do for them what their own family refuses to do.

If you're a felon and can't get a job, that's your fucking problem. Should have thought about that before committing a crime.

 

[francoHFW]

Millions could face severe cuts to food stamps due to government shutdown.

Why do the Left put illegals ahead of immigrants who follow our laws and the needs of Americans who are in need of help?

Never mind the food stamps, think of what you could do with the $110B you currently spent on illegal immigrants each bloody year.

Now if my math is correct, your government could literally hand out $11,000, in cash, to the poorest 10 MILLION Americans with that money.

That’d be a great deal. We build the wall and once it’s complete, the Federal Government cuts a check for $11,000 dollars for 10 million Americans.

Put that in writing, I’ll urge Congress to approve it.

Except we both know the mathematics would never support such a crazy statement.

Why don't those 10 million Americans do something to earn more money instead of begging for it?

Because they are mainly disabled elderly or children? And is it time to give amnesty to all the felons that can't get jobs? Most of whom it's about drugs or marijuana... What about it law & order idiots?

Why don't their fucking parents or family members do something to help them instead of begging for it? The taxpayers aren't their ATM nor do they hold any responsibility to do for them what their own family refuses to do.

If you're a felon and can't get a job, that's your fucking problem. Should have thought about that before committing a crime.

Also society's problem, since nobody agrees with your let them die philosophy, angry old brainwashed functional moron...

 

[francoHFW]

My example is of a word being used differently, you idiot? That means the definition changed-- please go away you make no sense.

Using a word differently doesn't change the definition, otherwise all definitions would be arbitrary and debate would cease to exist, because nobody would know what anyone was saying. Your examples have been mostly of politicians, but politicians have no more legitimacy to change the definition of a word than any other individual person. Either you don't want to understand, or everything I'm saying is just flying right over your head.

The example of 'Literally" and "Not literally" was used because they match your assertion. Some people use the word "Literally" as "Figuratively", much like you're trying to use "Socialist" as "Not Socialist". Certain people or some number of people(Appeal to authority and appeal to popularity fallacies respectively) misusing a word does not change that word, and do not change logic, which is why I mentioned the Consistency Principle and the Law of Noncontradiction.

As Wikipedia and history books witness, there have been three definitions of socialism predominant. First the original Marxist theory, proven wrong in many respects. Second socialism as defined by the USSR when people believed there was freedom and a form of democracy involved. When that was proven wrong, socialism became what the whole world except GOP dupe world knows it as, always democratic fair capitalism with a good safety net. Wake up and smell the coffee LOL.

Difference in usage of the word is not difference in definition. You also don't bother to give me any citations for the history books you're referring to, and you didn't bother explaining how or why the definition can be changed. In other words, you're just making a baseless assertion.

Here, I'll dumb it down as much as humanly possible: If some random individual or politician could change the definition of a word according to their feelings, North Korea would be the current faithful application of Democracy, since they call themselves "The Democratic People's Republic of Korea".

I'd keep explaining it in logical terms, but it keeps flying right over your head, so I just decided to point at some jack-boots for you to lick, since it's the only terms you seem to think in. You know, since Logic, the "Literally" example, and the consequences of such a method, all seemed to fly right over your head.

You can lead an idiot to the facts, but you can't make them drink. Your brain is anarchy, based on some article you read once lol... End of this year's lesson....

Yeah, funny, I've lead you to numerous facts this entire 'discussion', yet you've given me absolutely nothing in terms of argument. You claim to be right, yet your arguments basically amount to a politician or group of people using the word incorrectly, and can't tell me why or how that would supposedly change the definition, and despite believing this to be the case, you don't just remain consistent when I point out another case that apparently doesn't apply.

One way you can tell when a person is wrong is when their argument can't be applied consistently across the board, which is why it's clear that you're wrong here. You simply pick and choose what you accept based on your feelings, rather than based on logic. You spew adhoms and lie instead of arguing logically.

You're also so freaking clueless that you didn't recognize the basis for my argument, I even specified. My argument came from philosophy and logic, not an "article". I don't need someone to tell me what to think, unlike the talking point parrots that look up to the politicians as Gods and ask them what to think, I instead question everything, study, and inform myself. It's hilarious, because you're actually guilty of everything you accused me of, all you've cited at all was Wikipedia(Which is not accepted as a scholarly source by anything or anyone) and what you heard from some politicians, yet you accuse ME of reading a single article. It's downright baffling that anyone bothers to reply to you given your exhibited propensity for being dishonest and outright asserting something regardless of it being previously refuted a thousand times, and without actually explaining the logic and reasoning behind your position, or why something is supposedly the way you claim.

That's even leaving aside your repeated fallacies, appealing to authority and appealing to popularity, as if someone holding a position or sharing the position with some arbitrary number of people is some kind of evidence that it's correct.

In addition to that, you replied, repeatedly, to my clear and concise explanations with 1-2 sentences, then have the impudence to actually claim you've taught some kind of lesson. You old fart, your arguments were so weak and ignorant, I had to actually explain to you that your citation refutes your freaking argument. How about you actually read your damn sources? On top of that, you claim to be a teacher, yet your citation was freaking Wikipedia, a source accepted by no establishment or organization as a scholarly source, and this was while claiming "BOOOOOKS" without bothering to name a single solitary one.

If this is a damn lesson to you, I fear for the students you supposedly have, because your teaching quality thoroughly ensures that your hypothetical students would be left learning less than you, assuming you're capable of ingesting information at all, which is quite the assumption given how little you bothered to read of anything I typed, despite the fact that my positions and explanations are better defined and backed than any of the garbage you flung at the screen.

How about Britannica, dumbass? Or any other outlet outside the GOP propaganda machine? Marxism, then the USSR, now successful modern countries except us of course, thanks to idiots like you...
Socialism - Postwar socialism

 

[Conservative65]

Never mind the food stamps, think of what you could do with the $110B you currently spent on illegal immigrants each bloody year.

Now if my math is correct, your government could literally hand out $11,000, in cash, to the poorest 10 MILLION Americans with that money.

That’d be a great deal. We build the wall and once it’s complete, the Federal Government cuts a check for $11,000 dollars for 10 million Americans.

Put that in writing, I’ll urge Congress to approve it.

Except we both know the mathematics would never support such a crazy statement.

Why don't those 10 million Americans do something to earn more money instead of begging for it?

Because they are mainly disabled elderly or children? And is it time to give amnesty to all the felons that can't get jobs? Most of whom it's about drugs or marijuana... What about it law & order idiots?

Why don't their fucking parents or family members do something to help them instead of begging for it? The taxpayers aren't their ATM nor do they hold any responsibility to do for them what their own family refuses to do.

If you're a felon and can't get a job, that's your fucking problem. Should have thought about that before committing a crime.

Also society's problem, since nobody agrees with your let them die philosophy, angry old brainwashed functional moron...

It's not societies problem because their piece of shit family won't take care of them. It tells me that they aren't worth caring for if their own family won't invest in them.

Someone's refusal to do what they're supposed to do doesn't default the responsibility to the rest of us.

I'd let yours die before I'd give them a penny if that little would save their life.

 

[francoHFW]

That’d be a great deal. We build the wall and once it’s complete, the Federal Government cuts a check for $11,000 dollars for 10 million Americans.

Put that in writing, I’ll urge Congress to approve it.

Except we both know the mathematics would never support such a crazy statement.

Why don't those 10 million Americans do something to earn more money instead of begging for it?

Because they are mainly disabled elderly or children? And is it time to give amnesty to all the felons that can't get jobs? Most of whom it's about drugs or marijuana... What about it law & order idiots?

Why don't their fucking parents or family members do something to help them instead of begging for it? The taxpayers aren't their ATM nor do they hold any responsibility to do for them what their own family refuses to do.

If you're a felon and can't get a job, that's your fucking problem. Should have thought about that before committing a crime.

Also society's problem, since nobody agrees with your let them die philosophy, angry old brainwashed functional moron...

It's not societies problem because their piece of shit family won't take care of them. It tells me that they aren't worth caring for if their own family won't invest in them.

Someone's refusal to do what they're supposed to do doesn't default the responsibility to the rest of us.

I'd let yours die before I'd give them a penny if that little would save their life.

Nobody gives a s*** what you think, brainwashed functional moron hater dupe LOL

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Using a word differently doesn't change the definition, otherwise all definitions would be arbitrary and debate would cease to exist, because nobody would know what anyone was saying. Your examples have been mostly of politicians, but politicians have no more legitimacy to change the definition of a word than any other individual person. Either you don't want to understand, or everything I'm saying is just flying right over your head.

The example of 'Literally" and "Not literally" was used because they match your assertion. Some people use the word "Literally" as "Figuratively", much like you're trying to use "Socialist" as "Not Socialist". Certain people or some number of people(Appeal to authority and appeal to popularity fallacies respectively) misusing a word does not change that word, and do not change logic, which is why I mentioned the Consistency Principle and the Law of Noncontradiction.

As Wikipedia and history books witness, there have been three definitions of socialism predominant. First the original Marxist theory, proven wrong in many respects. Second socialism as defined by the USSR when people believed there was freedom and a form of democracy involved. When that was proven wrong, socialism became what the whole world except GOP dupe world knows it as, always democratic fair capitalism with a good safety net. Wake up and smell the coffee LOL.

Difference in usage of the word is not difference in definition. You also don't bother to give me any citations for the history books you're referring to, and you didn't bother explaining how or why the definition can be changed. In other words, you're just making a baseless assertion.

Here, I'll dumb it down as much as humanly possible: If some random individual or politician could change the definition of a word according to their feelings, North Korea would be the current faithful application of Democracy, since they call themselves "The Democratic People's Republic of Korea".

I'd keep explaining it in logical terms, but it keeps flying right over your head, so I just decided to point at some jack-boots for you to lick, since it's the only terms you seem to think in. You know, since Logic, the "Literally" example, and the consequences of such a method, all seemed to fly right over your head.

You can lead an idiot to the facts, but you can't make them drink. Your brain is anarchy, based on some article you read once lol... End of this year's lesson....

Yeah, funny, I've lead you to numerous facts this entire 'discussion', yet you've given me absolutely nothing in terms of argument. You claim to be right, yet your arguments basically amount to a politician or group of people using the word incorrectly, and can't tell me why or how that would supposedly change the definition, and despite believing this to be the case, you don't just remain consistent when I point out another case that apparently doesn't apply.

One way you can tell when a person is wrong is when their argument can't be applied consistently across the board, which is why it's clear that you're wrong here. You simply pick and choose what you accept based on your feelings, rather than based on logic. You spew adhoms and lie instead of arguing logically.

You're also so freaking clueless that you didn't recognize the basis for my argument, I even specified. My argument came from philosophy and logic, not an "article". I don't need someone to tell me what to think, unlike the talking point parrots that look up to the politicians as Gods and ask them what to think, I instead question everything, study, and inform myself. It's hilarious, because you're actually guilty of everything you accused me of, all you've cited at all was Wikipedia(Which is not accepted as a scholarly source by anything or anyone) and what you heard from some politicians, yet you accuse ME of reading a single article. It's downright baffling that anyone bothers to reply to you given your exhibited propensity for being dishonest and outright asserting something regardless of it being previously refuted a thousand times, and without actually explaining the logic and reasoning behind your position, or why something is supposedly the way you claim.

That's even leaving aside your repeated fallacies, appealing to authority and appealing to popularity, as if someone holding a position or sharing the position with some arbitrary number of people is some kind of evidence that it's correct.

In addition to that, you replied, repeatedly, to my clear and concise explanations with 1-2 sentences, then have the impudence to actually claim you've taught some kind of lesson. You old fart, your arguments were so weak and ignorant, I had to actually explain to you that your citation refutes your freaking argument. How about you actually read your damn sources? On top of that, you claim to be a teacher, yet your citation was freaking Wikipedia, a source accepted by no establishment or organization as a scholarly source, and this was while claiming "BOOOOOKS" without bothering to name a single solitary one.

If this is a damn lesson to you, I fear for the students you supposedly have, because your teaching quality thoroughly ensures that your hypothetical students would be left learning less than you, assuming you're capable of ingesting information at all, which is quite the assumption given how little you bothered to read of anything I typed, despite the fact that my positions and explanations are better defined and backed than any of the garbage you flung at the screen.

How about Britannica, dumbass? Or any other outlet outside the GOP propaganda machine? Marxism, then the USSR, now successful modern countries except us of course, thanks to idiots like you...
Socialism - Postwar socialism

Okay, sure, Encyclopedia Britannica works:

It even specifies that it's in direct opposition to Capitalism, which, again, brings me back to every single failure I listed being Socialist, and several of the "successes" you listed being more economically free than America, despite the doctrine being in opposition to Capitalism and requiring Social ownership of the means of production.

Your ignorant adhom attack also brings me back to the point you keep refusing to address, that being that the Economic Calculation Problem and Law of Diminishing Returns preventing government programs from working.

The article you cited, while erroneously referring to the Soviet Union, among other Socialist failures, as communist, also calls them Socialist at the same time. Not only this, but it also admits that this "New definition for Socialism" is not only called something else("Market Socialism"), but still maintains the same components that the name is derived from:

So, once again, you're citing an article that only hurts your argument, especially since at the very end of the Article, the writer is talking about the elimination of individualism and classes:

You linked me an article that was written by a full-blown Marxist, and they still refuted your own argument.

 

[francoHFW]

As Wikipedia and history books witness, there have been three definitions of socialism predominant. First the original Marxist theory, proven wrong in many respects. Second socialism as defined by the USSR when people believed there was freedom and a form of democracy involved. When that was proven wrong, socialism became what the whole world except GOP dupe world knows it as, always democratic fair capitalism with a good safety net. Wake up and smell the coffee LOL.

Difference in usage of the word is not difference in definition. You also don't bother to give me any citations for the history books you're referring to, and you didn't bother explaining how or why the definition can be changed. In other words, you're just making a baseless assertion.

Here, I'll dumb it down as much as humanly possible: If some random individual or politician could change the definition of a word according to their feelings, North Korea would be the current faithful application of Democracy, since they call themselves "The Democratic People's Republic of Korea".

I'd keep explaining it in logical terms, but it keeps flying right over your head, so I just decided to point at some jack-boots for you to lick, since it's the only terms you seem to think in. You know, since Logic, the "Literally" example, and the consequences of such a method, all seemed to fly right over your head.

You can lead an idiot to the facts, but you can't make them drink. Your brain is anarchy, based on some article you read once lol... End of this year's lesson....

Yeah, funny, I've lead you to numerous facts this entire 'discussion', yet you've given me absolutely nothing in terms of argument. You claim to be right, yet your arguments basically amount to a politician or group of people using the word incorrectly, and can't tell me why or how that would supposedly change the definition, and despite believing this to be the case, you don't just remain consistent when I point out another case that apparently doesn't apply.

One way you can tell when a person is wrong is when their argument can't be applied consistently across the board, which is why it's clear that you're wrong here. You simply pick and choose what you accept based on your feelings, rather than based on logic. You spew adhoms and lie instead of arguing logically.

You're also so freaking clueless that you didn't recognize the basis for my argument, I even specified. My argument came from philosophy and logic, not an "article". I don't need someone to tell me what to think, unlike the talking point parrots that look up to the politicians as Gods and ask them what to think, I instead question everything, study, and inform myself. It's hilarious, because you're actually guilty of everything you accused me of, all you've cited at all was Wikipedia(Which is not accepted as a scholarly source by anything or anyone) and what you heard from some politicians, yet you accuse ME of reading a single article. It's downright baffling that anyone bothers to reply to you given your exhibited propensity for being dishonest and outright asserting something regardless of it being previously refuted a thousand times, and without actually explaining the logic and reasoning behind your position, or why something is supposedly the way you claim.

That's even leaving aside your repeated fallacies, appealing to authority and appealing to popularity, as if someone holding a position or sharing the position with some arbitrary number of people is some kind of evidence that it's correct.

In addition to that, you replied, repeatedly, to my clear and concise explanations with 1-2 sentences, then have the impudence to actually claim you've taught some kind of lesson. You old fart, your arguments were so weak and ignorant, I had to actually explain to you that your citation refutes your freaking argument. How about you actually read your damn sources? On top of that, you claim to be a teacher, yet your citation was freaking Wikipedia, a source accepted by no establishment or organization as a scholarly source, and this was while claiming "BOOOOOKS" without bothering to name a single solitary one.

If this is a damn lesson to you, I fear for the students you supposedly have, because your teaching quality thoroughly ensures that your hypothetical students would be left learning less than you, assuming you're capable of ingesting information at all, which is quite the assumption given how little you bothered to read of anything I typed, despite the fact that my positions and explanations are better defined and backed than any of the garbage you flung at the screen.

How about Britannica, dumbass? Or any other outlet outside the GOP propaganda machine? Marxism, then the USSR, now successful modern countries except us of course, thanks to idiots like you...
Socialism - Postwar socialism

Okay, sure, Encyclopedia Britannica works:

It even specifies that it's in direct opposition to Capitalism, which, again, brings me back to every single failure I listed being Socialist, and several of the "successes" you listed being more economically free than America, despite the doctrine being in opposition to Capitalism and requiring Social ownership of the means of production.

Your ignorant adhom attack also brings me back to the point you keep refusing to address, that being that the Economic Calculation Problem and Law of Diminishing Returns preventing government programs from working.

The article you cited, while erroneously referring to the Soviet Union, among other Socialist failures, as communist, also calls them Socialist at the same time. Not only this, but it also admits that this "New definition for Socialism" is not only called something else("Market Socialism"), but still maintains the same components that the name is derived from:

So, once again, you're citing an article that only hurts your argument, especially since at the very end of the Article, the writer is talking about the elimination of individualism and classes:

You linked me an article that was written by a full-blown Marxist, and they still refuted your own argument.

Ownership OR control, idiot. Control over industry and business is what we have, so we are socialists, not communist as in ownership. You are so stupid.

 

[danielpalos]

As Wikipedia and history books witness, there have been three definitions of socialism predominant. First the original Marxist theory, proven wrong in many respects. Second socialism as defined by the USSR when people believed there was freedom and a form of democracy involved. When that was proven wrong, socialism became what the whole world except GOP dupe world knows it as, always democratic fair capitalism with a good safety net. Wake up and smell the coffee LOL.

Difference in usage of the word is not difference in definition. You also don't bother to give me any citations for the history books you're referring to, and you didn't bother explaining how or why the definition can be changed. In other words, you're just making a baseless assertion.

Here, I'll dumb it down as much as humanly possible: If some random individual or politician could change the definition of a word according to their feelings, North Korea would be the current faithful application of Democracy, since they call themselves "The Democratic People's Republic of Korea".

I'd keep explaining it in logical terms, but it keeps flying right over your head, so I just decided to point at some jack-boots for you to lick, since it's the only terms you seem to think in. You know, since Logic, the "Literally" example, and the consequences of such a method, all seemed to fly right over your head.

You can lead an idiot to the facts, but you can't make them drink. Your brain is anarchy, based on some article you read once lol... End of this year's lesson....

Yeah, funny, I've lead you to numerous facts this entire 'discussion', yet you've given me absolutely nothing in terms of argument. You claim to be right, yet your arguments basically amount to a politician or group of people using the word incorrectly, and can't tell me why or how that would supposedly change the definition, and despite believing this to be the case, you don't just remain consistent when I point out another case that apparently doesn't apply.

One way you can tell when a person is wrong is when their argument can't be applied consistently across the board, which is why it's clear that you're wrong here. You simply pick and choose what you accept based on your feelings, rather than based on logic. You spew adhoms and lie instead of arguing logically.

You're also so freaking clueless that you didn't recognize the basis for my argument, I even specified. My argument came from philosophy and logic, not an "article". I don't need someone to tell me what to think, unlike the talking point parrots that look up to the politicians as Gods and ask them what to think, I instead question everything, study, and inform myself. It's hilarious, because you're actually guilty of everything you accused me of, all you've cited at all was Wikipedia(Which is not accepted as a scholarly source by anything or anyone) and what you heard from some politicians, yet you accuse ME of reading a single article. It's downright baffling that anyone bothers to reply to you given your exhibited propensity for being dishonest and outright asserting something regardless of it being previously refuted a thousand times, and without actually explaining the logic and reasoning behind your position, or why something is supposedly the way you claim.

That's even leaving aside your repeated fallacies, appealing to authority and appealing to popularity, as if someone holding a position or sharing the position with some arbitrary number of people is some kind of evidence that it's correct.

In addition to that, you replied, repeatedly, to my clear and concise explanations with 1-2 sentences, then have the impudence to actually claim you've taught some kind of lesson. You old fart, your arguments were so weak and ignorant, I had to actually explain to you that your citation refutes your freaking argument. How about you actually read your damn sources? On top of that, you claim to be a teacher, yet your citation was freaking Wikipedia, a source accepted by no establishment or organization as a scholarly source, and this was while claiming "BOOOOOKS" without bothering to name a single solitary one.

If this is a damn lesson to you, I fear for the students you supposedly have, because your teaching quality thoroughly ensures that your hypothetical students would be left learning less than you, assuming you're capable of ingesting information at all, which is quite the assumption given how little you bothered to read of anything I typed, despite the fact that my positions and explanations are better defined and backed than any of the garbage you flung at the screen.

How about Britannica, dumbass? Or any other outlet outside the GOP propaganda machine? Marxism, then the USSR, now successful modern countries except us of course, thanks to idiots like you...
Socialism - Postwar socialism

Okay, sure, Encyclopedia Britannica works:

It even specifies that it's in direct opposition to Capitalism, which, again, brings me back to every single failure I listed being Socialist, and several of the "successes" you listed being more economically free than America, despite the doctrine being in opposition to Capitalism and requiring Social ownership of the means of production.

Your ignorant adhom attack also brings me back to the point you keep refusing to address, that being that the Economic Calculation Problem and Law of Diminishing Returns preventing government programs from working.

The article you cited, while erroneously referring to the Soviet Union, among other Socialist failures, as communist, also calls them Socialist at the same time. Not only this, but it also admits that this "New definition for Socialism" is not only called something else("Market Socialism"), but still maintains the same components that the name is derived from:

So, once again, you're citing an article that only hurts your argument, especially since at the very end of the Article, the writer is talking about the elimination of individualism and classes:

You linked me an article that was written by a full-blown Marxist, and they still refuted your own argument.

Eminent domain is socialism. We simply have a market friendly form of it.

Congress commands fiscal policy and the Fed commands monetary policy;

and, in the federal Districts, Congress assembled can do This: To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever,

 

[deanrd]

When it comes to whether or not Republicans care for the poor I have one word. Appalachia.
If Republicans don’t even care about other Republicans, then why would they care about anyone? Except billionaires and millionaires. That goes without saying.

I live in democrat run Boston the only people that aren’t allowed to have the opportunity to live freely are the poor, democrats have put barriers up on housing with building codes and cost restrictions that keep the poor unable to be entrepreneurs. Unions have destroyed private jobs, and bad education has caused to poor not to protest the bad guy the democrat party

Prove it or shut the fuk up.

I get so tired of your guy lying.

Besides, what are Republicans doing about the millions of destitute Republicans living in Appalachia?

How come they won't talk about helping their own?

We already know why. If they aren't billionaires, white or not, the GOP says fuk'em.

 

[deanrd]

Difference in usage of the word is not difference in definition. You also don't bother to give me any citations for the history books you're referring to, and you didn't bother explaining how or why the definition can be changed. In other words, you're just making a baseless assertion.

Here, I'll dumb it down as much as humanly possible: If some random individual or politician could change the definition of a word according to their feelings, North Korea would be the current faithful application of Democracy, since they call themselves "The Democratic People's Republic of Korea".

I'd keep explaining it in logical terms, but it keeps flying right over your head, so I just decided to point at some jack-boots for you to lick, since it's the only terms you seem to think in. You know, since Logic, the "Literally" example, and the consequences of such a method, all seemed to fly right over your head.

You can lead an idiot to the facts, but you can't make them drink. Your brain is anarchy, based on some article you read once lol... End of this year's lesson....

Yeah, funny, I've lead you to numerous facts this entire 'discussion', yet you've given me absolutely nothing in terms of argument. You claim to be right, yet your arguments basically amount to a politician or group of people using the word incorrectly, and can't tell me why or how that would supposedly change the definition, and despite believing this to be the case, you don't just remain consistent when I point out another case that apparently doesn't apply.

One way you can tell when a person is wrong is when their argument can't be applied consistently across the board, which is why it's clear that you're wrong here. You simply pick and choose what you accept based on your feelings, rather than based on logic. You spew adhoms and lie instead of arguing logically.

You're also so freaking clueless that you didn't recognize the basis for my argument, I even specified. My argument came from philosophy and logic, not an "article". I don't need someone to tell me what to think, unlike the talking point parrots that look up to the politicians as Gods and ask them what to think, I instead question everything, study, and inform myself. It's hilarious, because you're actually guilty of everything you accused me of, all you've cited at all was Wikipedia(Which is not accepted as a scholarly source by anything or anyone) and what you heard from some politicians, yet you accuse ME of reading a single article. It's downright baffling that anyone bothers to reply to you given your exhibited propensity for being dishonest and outright asserting something regardless of it being previously refuted a thousand times, and without actually explaining the logic and reasoning behind your position, or why something is supposedly the way you claim.

That's even leaving aside your repeated fallacies, appealing to authority and appealing to popularity, as if someone holding a position or sharing the position with some arbitrary number of people is some kind of evidence that it's correct.

In addition to that, you replied, repeatedly, to my clear and concise explanations with 1-2 sentences, then have the impudence to actually claim you've taught some kind of lesson. You old fart, your arguments were so weak and ignorant, I had to actually explain to you that your citation refutes your freaking argument. How about you actually read your damn sources? On top of that, you claim to be a teacher, yet your citation was freaking Wikipedia, a source accepted by no establishment or organization as a scholarly source, and this was while claiming "BOOOOOKS" without bothering to name a single solitary one.

If this is a damn lesson to you, I fear for the students you supposedly have, because your teaching quality thoroughly ensures that your hypothetical students would be left learning less than you, assuming you're capable of ingesting information at all, which is quite the assumption given how little you bothered to read of anything I typed, despite the fact that my positions and explanations are better defined and backed than any of the garbage you flung at the screen.

How about Britannica, dumbass? Or any other outlet outside the GOP propaganda machine? Marxism, then the USSR, now successful modern countries except us of course, thanks to idiots like you...
Socialism - Postwar socialism

Okay, sure, Encyclopedia Britannica works:

It even specifies that it's in direct opposition to Capitalism, which, again, brings me back to every single failure I listed being Socialist, and several of the "successes" you listed being more economically free than America, despite the doctrine being in opposition to Capitalism and requiring Social ownership of the means of production.

Your ignorant adhom attack also brings me back to the point you keep refusing to address, that being that the Economic Calculation Problem and Law of Diminishing Returns preventing government programs from working.

The article you cited, while erroneously referring to the Soviet Union, among other Socialist failures, as communist, also calls them Socialist at the same time. Not only this, but it also admits that this "New definition for Socialism" is not only called something else("Market Socialism"), but still maintains the same components that the name is derived from:

So, once again, you're citing an article that only hurts your argument, especially since at the very end of the Article, the writer is talking about the elimination of individualism and classes:

You linked me an article that was written by a full-blown Marxist, and they still refuted your own argument.

Eminent domain is socialism. We simply have a market friendly form of it.

Congress commands fiscal policy and the Fed commands monetary policy;

and, in the federal Districts, Congress assembled can do This: To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever,

Bush used eminent domain to get rich.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Difference in usage of the word is not difference in definition. You also don't bother to give me any citations for the history books you're referring to, and you didn't bother explaining how or why the definition can be changed. In other words, you're just making a baseless assertion.

Here, I'll dumb it down as much as humanly possible: If some random individual or politician could change the definition of a word according to their feelings, North Korea would be the current faithful application of Democracy, since they call themselves "The Democratic People's Republic of Korea".

I'd keep explaining it in logical terms, but it keeps flying right over your head, so I just decided to point at some jack-boots for you to lick, since it's the only terms you seem to think in. You know, since Logic, the "Literally" example, and the consequences of such a method, all seemed to fly right over your head.

You can lead an idiot to the facts, but you can't make them drink. Your brain is anarchy, based on some article you read once lol... End of this year's lesson....

Yeah, funny, I've lead you to numerous facts this entire 'discussion', yet you've given me absolutely nothing in terms of argument. You claim to be right, yet your arguments basically amount to a politician or group of people using the word incorrectly, and can't tell me why or how that would supposedly change the definition, and despite believing this to be the case, you don't just remain consistent when I point out another case that apparently doesn't apply.

One way you can tell when a person is wrong is when their argument can't be applied consistently across the board, which is why it's clear that you're wrong here. You simply pick and choose what you accept based on your feelings, rather than based on logic. You spew adhoms and lie instead of arguing logically.

You're also so freaking clueless that you didn't recognize the basis for my argument, I even specified. My argument came from philosophy and logic, not an "article". I don't need someone to tell me what to think, unlike the talking point parrots that look up to the politicians as Gods and ask them what to think, I instead question everything, study, and inform myself. It's hilarious, because you're actually guilty of everything you accused me of, all you've cited at all was Wikipedia(Which is not accepted as a scholarly source by anything or anyone) and what you heard from some politicians, yet you accuse ME of reading a single article. It's downright baffling that anyone bothers to reply to you given your exhibited propensity for being dishonest and outright asserting something regardless of it being previously refuted a thousand times, and without actually explaining the logic and reasoning behind your position, or why something is supposedly the way you claim.

That's even leaving aside your repeated fallacies, appealing to authority and appealing to popularity, as if someone holding a position or sharing the position with some arbitrary number of people is some kind of evidence that it's correct.

In addition to that, you replied, repeatedly, to my clear and concise explanations with 1-2 sentences, then have the impudence to actually claim you've taught some kind of lesson. You old fart, your arguments were so weak and ignorant, I had to actually explain to you that your citation refutes your freaking argument. How about you actually read your damn sources? On top of that, you claim to be a teacher, yet your citation was freaking Wikipedia, a source accepted by no establishment or organization as a scholarly source, and this was while claiming "BOOOOOKS" without bothering to name a single solitary one.

If this is a damn lesson to you, I fear for the students you supposedly have, because your teaching quality thoroughly ensures that your hypothetical students would be left learning less than you, assuming you're capable of ingesting information at all, which is quite the assumption given how little you bothered to read of anything I typed, despite the fact that my positions and explanations are better defined and backed than any of the garbage you flung at the screen.

How about Britannica, dumbass? Or any other outlet outside the GOP propaganda machine? Marxism, then the USSR, now successful modern countries except us of course, thanks to idiots like you...
Socialism - Postwar socialism

Okay, sure, Encyclopedia Britannica works:

It even specifies that it's in direct opposition to Capitalism, which, again, brings me back to every single failure I listed being Socialist, and several of the "successes" you listed being more economically free than America, despite the doctrine being in opposition to Capitalism and requiring Social ownership of the means of production.

Your ignorant adhom attack also brings me back to the point you keep refusing to address, that being that the Economic Calculation Problem and Law of Diminishing Returns preventing government programs from working.

The article you cited, while erroneously referring to the Soviet Union, among other Socialist failures, as communist, also calls them Socialist at the same time. Not only this, but it also admits that this "New definition for Socialism" is not only called something else("Market Socialism"), but still maintains the same components that the name is derived from:

So, once again, you're citing an article that only hurts your argument, especially since at the very end of the Article, the writer is talking about the elimination of individualism and classes:

You linked me an article that was written by a full-blown Marxist, and they still refuted your own argument.

Ownership OR control, idiot. Control over industry and business is what we have, so we are socialists, not communist as in ownership. You are so stupid.

You're just repeating back to me what I've already told you. Social Control of the means of production, as the name components mean, which also means I haven't said a single false thing this entire thread, and you just agreed with me.

Aside from the Communist bit, which is, again, incorrect because Communism is defined as having no Social Classes, no Currency, and no Private Property.

You're also, hilariously, complaining that other locations are doing better than the US while those other locations are more economically free. You're unironically advocating for less government involvement in the market by pointing to more economically free locations, while complaining that we need more Socialism in the US.

Oh, and I didn't call the United States Capitalist. I don't classify any place with a Government as Capitalist, as it's a system independent of the government. I only classify them as more economically free or more Authoritarian.

Calling me stupid when you're unironically proving my point over and over. Spew more adhoms, I'm sure it'll help you look like less of a fool while you're refuting yourself with your own citations.

 

[francoHFW]

You can lead an idiot to the facts, but you can't make them drink. Your brain is anarchy, based on some article you read once lol... End of this year's lesson....

Yeah, funny, I've lead you to numerous facts this entire 'discussion', yet you've given me absolutely nothing in terms of argument. You claim to be right, yet your arguments basically amount to a politician or group of people using the word incorrectly, and can't tell me why or how that would supposedly change the definition, and despite believing this to be the case, you don't just remain consistent when I point out another case that apparently doesn't apply.

One way you can tell when a person is wrong is when their argument can't be applied consistently across the board, which is why it's clear that you're wrong here. You simply pick and choose what you accept based on your feelings, rather than based on logic. You spew adhoms and lie instead of arguing logically.

You're also so freaking clueless that you didn't recognize the basis for my argument, I even specified. My argument came from philosophy and logic, not an "article". I don't need someone to tell me what to think, unlike the talking point parrots that look up to the politicians as Gods and ask them what to think, I instead question everything, study, and inform myself. It's hilarious, because you're actually guilty of everything you accused me of, all you've cited at all was Wikipedia(Which is not accepted as a scholarly source by anything or anyone) and what you heard from some politicians, yet you accuse ME of reading a single article. It's downright baffling that anyone bothers to reply to you given your exhibited propensity for being dishonest and outright asserting something regardless of it being previously refuted a thousand times, and without actually explaining the logic and reasoning behind your position, or why something is supposedly the way you claim.

That's even leaving aside your repeated fallacies, appealing to authority and appealing to popularity, as if someone holding a position or sharing the position with some arbitrary number of people is some kind of evidence that it's correct.

In addition to that, you replied, repeatedly, to my clear and concise explanations with 1-2 sentences, then have the impudence to actually claim you've taught some kind of lesson. You old fart, your arguments were so weak and ignorant, I had to actually explain to you that your citation refutes your freaking argument. How about you actually read your damn sources? On top of that, you claim to be a teacher, yet your citation was freaking Wikipedia, a source accepted by no establishment or organization as a scholarly source, and this was while claiming "BOOOOOKS" without bothering to name a single solitary one.

If this is a damn lesson to you, I fear for the students you supposedly have, because your teaching quality thoroughly ensures that your hypothetical students would be left learning less than you, assuming you're capable of ingesting information at all, which is quite the assumption given how little you bothered to read of anything I typed, despite the fact that my positions and explanations are better defined and backed than any of the garbage you flung at the screen.

How about Britannica, dumbass? Or any other outlet outside the GOP propaganda machine? Marxism, then the USSR, now successful modern countries except us of course, thanks to idiots like you...
Socialism - Postwar socialism

Okay, sure, Encyclopedia Britannica works:

It even specifies that it's in direct opposition to Capitalism, which, again, brings me back to every single failure I listed being Socialist, and several of the "successes" you listed being more economically free than America, despite the doctrine being in opposition to Capitalism and requiring Social ownership of the means of production.

Your ignorant adhom attack also brings me back to the point you keep refusing to address, that being that the Economic Calculation Problem and Law of Diminishing Returns preventing government programs from working.

The article you cited, while erroneously referring to the Soviet Union, among other Socialist failures, as communist, also calls them Socialist at the same time. Not only this, but it also admits that this "New definition for Socialism" is not only called something else("Market Socialism"), but still maintains the same components that the name is derived from:

So, once again, you're citing an article that only hurts your argument, especially since at the very end of the Article, the writer is talking about the elimination of individualism and classes:

You linked me an article that was written by a full-blown Marxist, and they still refuted your own argument.

Ownership OR control, idiot. Control over industry and business is what we have, so we are socialists, not communist as in ownership. You are so stupid.

You're just repeating back to me what I've already told you. Social Control of the means of production, as the name components mean, which also means I haven't said a single false thing this entire thread, and you just agreed with me.

Aside from the Communist bit, which is, again, incorrect because Communism is defined as having no Social Classes, no Currency, and no Private Property.

You're also, hilariously, complaining that other locations are doing better than the US while those other locations are more economically free. You're unironically advocating for less government involvement in the market by pointing to more economically free locations, while complaining that we need more Socialism in the US.

Oh, and I didn't call the United States Capitalist. I don't classify any place with a Government as Capitalist, as it's a system independent of the government. I only classify them as more economically free or more Authoritarian.

Calling me stupid when you're unironically proving my point over and over. Spew more adhoms, I'm sure it'll help you look like less of a fool while you're refuting yourself with your own citations.

Guess what, the definition of communism also changed from Marxist pure ideology to the reality of the USSR. At the same time that socialismalso changed definition to the USSR. But since the 20s 30s socialism is only the modern definition. In your world communism has never been tried and socialism is what the USSR called it. LOL. But times have changed and so have the definitions from your ideological ideal.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Yeah, funny, I've lead you to numerous facts this entire 'discussion', yet you've given me absolutely nothing in terms of argument. You claim to be right, yet your arguments basically amount to a politician or group of people using the word incorrectly, and can't tell me why or how that would supposedly change the definition, and despite believing this to be the case, you don't just remain consistent when I point out another case that apparently doesn't apply.

One way you can tell when a person is wrong is when their argument can't be applied consistently across the board, which is why it's clear that you're wrong here. You simply pick and choose what you accept based on your feelings, rather than based on logic. You spew adhoms and lie instead of arguing logically.

You're also so freaking clueless that you didn't recognize the basis for my argument, I even specified. My argument came from philosophy and logic, not an "article". I don't need someone to tell me what to think, unlike the talking point parrots that look up to the politicians as Gods and ask them what to think, I instead question everything, study, and inform myself. It's hilarious, because you're actually guilty of everything you accused me of, all you've cited at all was Wikipedia(Which is not accepted as a scholarly source by anything or anyone) and what you heard from some politicians, yet you accuse ME of reading a single article. It's downright baffling that anyone bothers to reply to you given your exhibited propensity for being dishonest and outright asserting something regardless of it being previously refuted a thousand times, and without actually explaining the logic and reasoning behind your position, or why something is supposedly the way you claim.

That's even leaving aside your repeated fallacies, appealing to authority and appealing to popularity, as if someone holding a position or sharing the position with some arbitrary number of people is some kind of evidence that it's correct.

In addition to that, you replied, repeatedly, to my clear and concise explanations with 1-2 sentences, then have the impudence to actually claim you've taught some kind of lesson. You old fart, your arguments were so weak and ignorant, I had to actually explain to you that your citation refutes your freaking argument. How about you actually read your damn sources? On top of that, you claim to be a teacher, yet your citation was freaking Wikipedia, a source accepted by no establishment or organization as a scholarly source, and this was while claiming "BOOOOOKS" without bothering to name a single solitary one.

If this is a damn lesson to you, I fear for the students you supposedly have, because your teaching quality thoroughly ensures that your hypothetical students would be left learning less than you, assuming you're capable of ingesting information at all, which is quite the assumption given how little you bothered to read of anything I typed, despite the fact that my positions and explanations are better defined and backed than any of the garbage you flung at the screen.

How about Britannica, dumbass? Or any other outlet outside the GOP propaganda machine? Marxism, then the USSR, now successful modern countries except us of course, thanks to idiots like you...
Socialism - Postwar socialism

Okay, sure, Encyclopedia Britannica works:

It even specifies that it's in direct opposition to Capitalism, which, again, brings me back to every single failure I listed being Socialist, and several of the "successes" you listed being more economically free than America, despite the doctrine being in opposition to Capitalism and requiring Social ownership of the means of production.

Your ignorant adhom attack also brings me back to the point you keep refusing to address, that being that the Economic Calculation Problem and Law of Diminishing Returns preventing government programs from working.

The article you cited, while erroneously referring to the Soviet Union, among other Socialist failures, as communist, also calls them Socialist at the same time. Not only this, but it also admits that this "New definition for Socialism" is not only called something else("Market Socialism"), but still maintains the same components that the name is derived from:

So, once again, you're citing an article that only hurts your argument, especially since at the very end of the Article, the writer is talking about the elimination of individualism and classes:

You linked me an article that was written by a full-blown Marxist, and they still refuted your own argument.

Ownership OR control, idiot. Control over industry and business is what we have, so we are socialists, not communist as in ownership. You are so stupid.

You're just repeating back to me what I've already told you. Social Control of the means of production, as the name components mean, which also means I haven't said a single false thing this entire thread, and you just agreed with me.

Aside from the Communist bit, which is, again, incorrect because Communism is defined as having no Social Classes, no Currency, and no Private Property.

You're also, hilariously, complaining that other locations are doing better than the US while those other locations are more economically free. You're unironically advocating for less government involvement in the market by pointing to more economically free locations, while complaining that we need more Socialism in the US.

Oh, and I didn't call the United States Capitalist. I don't classify any place with a Government as Capitalist, as it's a system independent of the government. I only classify them as more economically free or more Authoritarian.

Calling me stupid when you're unironically proving my point over and over. Spew more adhoms, I'm sure it'll help you look like less of a fool while you're refuting yourself with your own citations.

Guess what, the definition of communism also changed from Marxist pure ideology to the reality of the USSR. At the same time that socialismalso changed definition to the USSR. But since the 20s 30s socialism is only the modern definition. In your world communism has never been tried and socialism is what the USSR called it. LOL. But times have changed and so have the definitions from your ideological ideal.

Firstly, Communism has been tried, communes have existed in numerous locations, on small scales, the world over. Trumbullpex is just one example, the Spanish Revolution, the Reign of Terror, I think the Paris Commune was one as well, though they turned into a dictatorship. Most other Communes tended to murder priests and repossess property. I can't remember the name of it, but there was also one that used coupons as currency eventually. So, yeah, it has been tried before, multiple times, and some still exist today. The definition never changed, the Socialists just attempted to disassociate from Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Soviet Russia because Socialism tends to be a colossal failure.

Your own citation refuted your argument, so you're going right back to making baseless assertions again, with no citations. You're probably the most dishonest person on this entire forum.

Well, if a Nation declaring themselves a specific thing changes the definition of a word, then Democratic means totalitarian dictatorship, therefor making Socialism Totalitarian regardless of whether you use the real definition or your erroneous version. This is the logic you operate by, therefor you should be 100% fine with this conclusion.