Air America Radio is a failure.....GOOD!!!
POSTED BY: Skywalken
UPDATED: Saturday, May 21, 2005 09:18
VIEWED: 10998
PAGE 6 of 8
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
I agree that the key to success is a balance. But it's important to note that Socialism is not balance. Socialism is not Norway's strong social programs floating in a democratic country with capitalist tendencies. Socialism is absolute. The government owns everything, and distributes according to need. (Or, what they perceive the need to be.)
Ok, I'm breaking my not participating b/c this is just effectively one big lie. I don't blame you, I just really think you don't understand it.
There is a major difference between modern socialism and what you discribe. You are probably confusing it with Marxism or Leninism.
Please update your knowledge.
Going back to /ignore.
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
I hope that you will not vanish after making such a comment. Though I have a Spanish heritage, I am not sure that guerilla combat is the way to go in a discussion.
Every definition of socialism thus far presented on this thread agrees that the government owns or controls production. This definition seems ubiquitous on both sides of the debate.
Do you have an alternative definition?
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello Sigmanuki,
This is a definition I found quoted in one of your posts, and is the definition I believe we were arguing from on both sides?
" http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=socialism
Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy."
We can dissect the definition to make it easier.
1) Social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is either:
1A) Owned Collectively: Everyone owns it. But of course, even if everyone owns it, every Tom, Dick, or Harry can't point to a yacht and say he wants one, so...
2A) By a Centralized Government: This seems pretty self explanatory. The government either owns or controls the means of producing. The government distributes.
2) That Often Plans and Controls the Economy: I don't know who else could plan or control an economy other than a government in a socialist state?
Now, the United States has wellfare programs. Does that make us Socialist? I don't think so. Canada and England have better wellfare programs. Are they Socialist? I don't think so. Maybe Norway has the best wellfare programs ever. Are they Socialist? Not to my knowledge.
Please help me to understand what a 'modern' socialist government is.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Conscience:Quote:
Originally posted by WhoIsRiver:
I should really point out the crew of Serenity could probably be considered Liberal...
BULLSHIT. No way in the 'verse would either Mal or Zoe support the fascism that is gun control or the stalinism that is taxation.
Libertarian yes, liberal hell no!
Ok-ayyyyyyyy... Do you write the characters now, do you?
Tell you what. I am meeting Joss in a few months - I will take my tape recorder and actually ask him, since he DOES write the characters.
It's worth noting that Serenity (the movie) deals with some things that some of you are going to get real worked up over...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
People forget that America experimented with evil evil socialism in the 1930s and 40s under President Franklin Roosevelt. In that time, and as a result of policies that were designed to serve the American people as opposed to corporate shareholders we did a bunch of insignificant things like escape the Great Depression, Win WW2, and build most of the infrastructure that is still used today by capitalists all over America to move goods. Socialism gets demonized because it’s a superior way to get important things done, but the rich don’t get any profits. Having some Socialist policies more people have jobs. More people live comfortably, but the very rich don’t get to increase their hordes.
About the Air America thing: All the liberals say ‘if you don’t like it, don’t listen.’ All the conservatives say ‘It should be silenced because I disagree with it.’ How American is it to want to throw away the Bill of Rights? FOX News is unapologetically Neo-Conservative propaganda that has no problem with outright lying (watch the film Out Foxed and there are a couple sites online that keep track of Fox’s casual relationship with truth) to push their agenda. And all other news on TV and in major print is biased towards reporting their own best interests, and because ABC, NBC, FOX, the New York Times, and CNN are all publicly traded companies, they are all anti socialism, and pro corporation. So they’re all right wing biased. Do I want to shut them up? No.
Crap. I’ve got to go to work
Bye
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Amnesiac:
People forget that America experimented with evil evil socialism in the 1930s and 40s under President Franklin Roosevelt. In that time, and as a result of policies that were designed to serve the American people as opposed to corporate shareholders we did a bunch of insignificant things like escape the Great Depression, Win WW2, and build most of the infrastructure that is still used today by capitalists all over America to move goods. Socialism gets demonized because it’s a superior way to get important things done, but the rich don’t get any profits. Having some Socialist policies more people have jobs. More people live comfortably, but the very rich don’t get to increase their hordes.
About the Air America thing: All the liberals say ‘if you don’t like it, don’t listen.’ All the conservatives say ‘It should be silenced because I disagree with it.’ How American is it to want to throw away the Bill of Rights? FOX News is unapologetically Neo-Conservative propaganda that has no problem with outright lying (watch the film Out Foxed and there are a couple sites online that keep track of Fox’s casual relationship with truth) to push their agenda. And all other news on TV and in major print is biased towards reporting their own best interests, and because ABC, NBC, FOX, the New York Times, and CNN are all publicly traded companies, they are all anti socialism, and pro corporation. So they’re all right wing biased. Do I want to shut them up? No.
Crap. I’ve got to go to work
Bye
Hello,
Socialism (actual socialism) is demonized because actual human beings can't pull it off without actual tyranny.
I think that anyone who says that the social welfare programs of the 30's weren't beneficial is really not paying attention to history.
But likewise I don't think social welfare programs make the United States a Socialist state. Nor do our Capitalist policies make us the Ferrengi. (To throw in a Star Trek tidbit.)
I have noticed two things about governments that sport a great deal of welfare programs.
One, they seem to have really high tax rates to pay for everything. There is something in England, for instance, called the VAT. My British friend and I joke that VAT stands for 'Very Astronomical Tax.'
Two, they seem to have really small militaries. (Compared to us, anyhow.) They can't afford all these welfare programs AND afford a military capable of fighting big wars (on two fronts, no less!)
I think that if the United States was to adopt greater and more effective welfare reform, we'd have to give up the idea of fighting two front wars, or even one front wars, and instead concentrate on homeland defense with the occasional ability to participate in a month-long police action.
That may or may not be a bad thing. After all, the military is one of the government's biggest job-providing programs. Not just the soldiers, but the vehicle and ordinance makers. The US Military is one of the last great American Industry supporters. We might need to increase taxes to get the money to create programs that equal its economic benefit.
Would I be willing to pay a 70% tax if that meant that I could have free medicine, free higher education, guaranteed housing, and a government unemployment and job placement program that works?
I dunno.
But I do think, even with all that, we wouldn't be a Socialist government. We'd be a democratic capitalism with excellent Welfare programs.
--Anthony
P.S. Fox News doesn't need to be silenced. It needs to be renamed. The Daily Show has the decency to call itself 'Fake News.' We should demand the same from Fox.
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Amnesiac:
All the liberals say ‘if you don’t like it, don’t listen.’ All the conservatives say ‘It should be silenced because I disagree with it.’ How American is it to want to throw away the Bill of Rights?
The person who started this thread is obviously happy that Air America has (*perhaps*... depending on who you believe) fallen upon hard times. I gather he was delighted that the information he found indicated that America didn't care for what it was hearing on Air America. But I didn't see him calling for the "silencing" of Air America... i.e., I didn't perceive the thread as a "call to action" to shut it (or any other liberal outlet) down.
I just did a quick review of the posts from the more notorious conservatives participating in this thread. None of them called for actively silencing the radio network. They do vigorously dispute its accuracy/integrity... but again, no call to action.
So I find your absolute claim about the conservatives' desire to silence Air America puzzling. I gather you weren't referring to the conservatives in this thread... but to conservatives in other venues. But that would disprove your claim as well, because the global "conservatives" you referred to include the ones here. I have absolutely NO DOUBT that you could find a published claim somewhere that someone wants Air America actively shut down immediately. That wouldn't be evidence that all conservatives actively support that desire.
The point I am trying to make is that humans are more complex than hyperbole'. And hyperbole' has no place in a rational debate. You could state that "most" conservatives want something. Or many. Or "XX percent" and cite a reference. But unsubtantiated hyperbole' is like a neon sign that says "let's stop discussing stuff rationally... I want to slur other's people's character and get into a bar fight!"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Since you have reacted in a way that's... not Finn (read arrogant, condescending, etc) I'll reply. Please understand that Finn and I have participated in a number of discussions together and my fuse has become short with him. Because of this, and the fact that I don't need any extra stress in my life right now, I don't believe that I'll directly interact with him anymore (which is the reason for /ignore). Some people just don't understand logic, no matter how well laid out it is ie Finn sticking to some archaic defintion not acknowledging the fact that such things evolve. I could go on.
I feel at this point, after some of your comments, that I must point out that no country has a pure implementation of any political system. There will be elements of many in any government. Countries only call themselves something b/c there particular hybrid contains a majority of that something (to one degree or another).
Canada for instance, has taken elements of Socialism and Capitalism in an attempt to get the benefits of both, without the drawbacks of either (I forget the actual term for it). It has had mixed success, as expected. Recently, it has moved in a more Capitalist direction. Something that I have started to move against.
Regarding your request for a modern definition of Socialism. I have already provided one. See my previous post that quotes the wiki. I'll paste it here for convenience:
"""
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
In modern socialist theory, it is in the pursuit of the goal of creating a democratic society that has a responsible people and a sympathetic government that would form the backbone of an ideal welfare state.
Please also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state before jumping to conclusions.
There are three main interpretations of the idea of a welfare state:
* the provision of welfare services by the state.
* an ideal model in which the state assumes primary responsibility for the welfare of its citizens. This responsibility is comprehensive, because all aspects of welfare are considered; a "safety net" is not enough. It is universal, because it covers every person as a matter of right.
* the provision of welfare in society. In many "welfare states", welfare is not actually provided by the state, but by a combination of independent, voluntary, mutualist and government services.
"""
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
P.S. Fox News doesn't need to be silenced. It needs to be renamed. The Daily Show has the decency to call itself 'Fake News.' We should demand the same from Fox.
I 100% agree. On a similar note though, since I've watched both, I must say that the Daily Show is far more accurate than F*X "news" has ever been. Anyone else find that as sad as I do?
On a final note, anyone else notice that the original poster never participated in this thread?!?!? Troll if I ever saw one.
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Canada for instance, has taken elements of Socialism and Capitalism
Sapitalism? Goverment by Saps. Yup, thats Canada.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:The definition listed in a 1991 dictionary has become archaic in 14 years? Wow. That word evolved fast. Let’s solve this problem. Today at work, I’ll try to remember to stop by the research Library and look up the word ‘socialism’ in a newer dictionary. Then we’ll see if the definition is archaic, shall we? What do you suppose I will find?
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Since you have reacted in a way that's... not Finn (read arrogant, condescending, etc) I'll reply. Please understand that Finn and I have participated in a number of discussions together and my fuse has become short with him. Because of this, and the fact that I don't need any extra stress in my life right now, I don't believe that I'll directly interact with him anymore (which is the reason for /ignore). Some people just don't understand logic, no matter how well laid out it is ie Finn sticking to some archaic defintion not acknowledging the fact that such things evolve. I could go on.
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME