• Xenforo Cloud is upgrading us to version 2.3.8 on Monday February 16th, 2026 at 12:00 AM PST. Expect a temporary downtime during this process. More info here

Darrell Issa labeled as a Racist

James Keith said:
How far they want to take it is arguable, there are always calls for more socialism from the left. People call to nationalize things constantly, they want to seize personal wealth, they want to create one new state-run aspect of the economy after another. They want the govt to guarantee everyone's needs. If that guarantee is there the market economy is just a sideshow.

But I'm fine calling such people halfass-socialists if that makes you feel better. The underlying belief in the "right" of the people to use the state to provide for their needs is the same.
Click to expand...

Lol can you provide some examples of these calls for nationalization?
 
Jack V Savage said:
Irrelevant, if true.
Click to expand...

Jack V Savage said:
That's irrelevant
Click to expand...

Jack V Savage said:
Irrelevant.
Click to expand...


6a00d83423e30253ef0154320414f8970c-350wi
 
James Keith said:
But I'm fine calling such people halfass-socialists if that makes you feel better. The underlying belief in the "right" of the people to use the state to provide for their needs is the same.
Click to expand...

Most the people inhabiting the developed world are halfass socialists by your standards Simply labelling someone or something socialist isn't in itself an indictment. It's something lazy wingnuts do because they see it as an easy way to score points instead of making an actual argument.
 
I fucking hate Jesse Jackson. He literally gives Conservatives the ability to SHIFT the conversation from "Darrell Issa is a douchebag who should be voted out for wasting resources and trying to silence the other side" to "OMG DEMS PLAYING RACE CARD totally worth talking about over the actual Issa issue!"
 
drowningidiot said:
Most the people inhabiting the developed world are halfass socialists by your standards Simply labelling someone or something socialist isn't in itself an indictment. It's something lazy wingnuts do because they see it as an easy way to score points instead of making an actual argument.
Click to expand...
There's a spectrum. With people who want more on the left and who oppose them or want less on the right. Which side wants to privatize things like the post office and which side opposes that? Reality really isn't the murky fog that you suggest.

And it isn't about labelling of things it is about the principles they hold.

Are coporations evil?
Is the govt good or evil?
Do people have a right to healthcare? To food? To having their needs met generally, which the state must provide?

Try stating what is wrong about socialism in a way that you think most people on the left would agree with.
 
Jack V Savage said:
Is there anything short of an open admission that you'd accept?
Click to expand...

I think a pattern of treating blacks diff than whites would be required. Can't wonder if someone is racist just because they were an asshole to a black person. Just as likely they are just an asshole.
 
James Keith said:
The link provides examples. That is indeed how it works.
Click to expand...

did you actually read any of the examples or did you simply do a google search?

The second hit on your search relates to a case in 1947, a 70 year old example 2 years after WW2.

The nationalisation was not called for by the people but was rather government enacted and the validity was challenged in the High Court by one of the banks and they won the case so Nationalisation was blocked legally.

Another salient point you missed was the government planned to actually buy the banks for real money, not simply seize them.
 
James Keith said:
There's a spectrum. With people who want more on the left and who oppose them or want less on the right. Which side wants to privatize things like the post office and which side opposes that? Reality really isn't the murky fog that you suggest.

And it isn't about labelling of things it is about the principles they hold.

Are coporations evil?
Is the govt good or evil?
Do people have a right to healthcare? To food? To having their needs met generally, which the state must provide?

Try stating what is wrong about socialism in a way that you think most people on the left would agree with.
Click to expand...

For all the arguments you have with liberals, you really don't understand liberalism. People don't have a "right" to have all their basic needs met. And the argument against socialism is that economic growth has really been the factor that has lifted the standard of living for the masses, and socialism doesn't do a good job providing it.
 
Kevin Rudd said:
did you actually read any of the examples or did you simply do a google search?

The second hit on your search relates to a case in 1947, a 70 year old example 2 years after WW2.
Click to expand...
Yes. At the very top is an article by "the American Progressive" with the title "nationalize the banks".

The site was down hence I gave the google search. There's other good stuff in the results too like Paul Krugman.

Kevin Rudd said:
The nationalisation was not called for by the people but was rather government enacted and the validity was challenged in the High Court by one of the banks and they won the case so Nationalisation was blocked legally.

Another salient point you missed was the government planned to actually buy the banks for real money, not simply seize them.
Click to expand...
What country are you in? Must be affecting your search results.
 
Jack V Savage said:
For all the arguments you have with liberals, you really don't understand liberalism. People don't have a "right" to have all their basic needs met.
Click to expand...
Of course liberals make this claim constantly. Right to healthcare is the latest one.

And even if you insist on parsing words fanatically, I don't see any divide between saying we are obligated to pay for welfare, and saying that person who needs welfare support has a right to our money.
Jack V Savage said:
And the argument against socialism is that economic growth has really been the factor that has lifted the standard of living for the masses, and socialism doesn't do a good job providing it.
Click to expand...
That is certainly Milton Friedman's argument. But he's no liberal.

So you're saying govt attempts at controlling the economy are less efficient?
 
sabretruth said:
Do you think Bismarck was a socialist? Do you know why he advocated a welfare state?
Click to expand...

To defang real socialists of course. Sort of like what the Dems do in America. It's funny that progressives and socialists are so enamored with mainstream Democrats though.
 
Jack V Savage said:
Yes, it's always been backwards, but that's as much a result of racism as anything else. People oppose sound economic policy that would lead to the region catching up to the rest of America because of local resentments.



It's not a dodge. I addressed your point. It's just so unbecoming for an old man to be attacking policy by calling everything socialism.
Click to expand...

I have lived in the Midwest, new England, and the deep south. The most racism I have encountered was in the Midwest and it wasn't even close.
 
James Keith said:
And even if you insist on parsing words fanatically, I don't see any divide between saying we are obligated to pay for welfare, and saying that person who needs welfare support has a right to our money.
Click to expand...

Do you see any difference between saying that automatic stabilizers help minimize the pain and duration of economic downturns and saying that a person who needs welfare has a right to our money? Or between saying that lifting the bottom of society helps make the nation a better place for everyone and your silly strawman version? Because, you know, those are the arguments that liberals actually make.

James Keith said:
That is certainly Milton Friedman's argument. But he's no liberal.

So you're saying govt attempts at controlling the economy are less efficient?
Click to expand...

Friedman is a certainly a liberal--right-leaning, but still liberal. And I'm saying what I said--socialism (whether it is stateless or with a state) does not lead to comparable economic growth as capitalism. Understanding, of course, that I'm referring to actual capitalism, not some loony definition where any regulation of industry or safety net turns a capitalist system into socialism. Distribution matters much less than overall growth. As I've pointed out, missing that has long been the mistake of the far left, but increasingly, we're seeing it on the right (as they prioritize upward redistribution over driving overall growth).
 
Jack V Savage said:
Do you see any difference between saying that automatic stabilizers help minimize the pain and duration of economic downturns and saying that a person who needs welfare has a right to our money? Or between saying that lifting the bottom of society helps make the nation a better place for everyone and your silly strawman version? Because, you know, those are the arguments that liberals actually make.
Click to expand...
I see a lot of spin to justify the same goal.
Jack V Savage said:
Friedman is a certainly a liberal--right-leaning, but still liberal.
Click to expand...
oh brother
 
James Keith said:
which is why industrialization and economic growth didn't occur until after welfare was invented?
Click to expand...

Welfare was a necessity as a direct result of the crisis of overproduction that was brought upon, in part, by industrialization and economic growth.

If you asking yourself why "economic growth" would result in the need for welfare, you are too dumb to realize how capitalism operates and should politely leave this conversation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,281,589
Messages
58,377,431
Members
176,017
Latest member
KTFOPerformance

Share this page

Back
Top