Cons cant tell you what they oppose, let me prove it...

[Libertas]

https://porter.house.gov/issues/


Be my guest. Katie's positions benefit everyone on this board. But cons will vote against her if they can.

They cant tell you why, though.

[carmenjonze]

https://porter.house.gov/issues/


Be my guest. Katie's positions benefit everyone on this board. But cons will vote against her if they can.

They cant tell you why, though.

Oh, they can tell you what and who they oppose. But not without deteriorating into the type of language that will get them banned from this board.

[Libertas]

Oh, they can tell you what and who they oppose. But not without deteriorating into the type of language that will get them banned from this board.

Yes, and they cant tell you what she stands for that they are against. As was asked here


viewtopic.php?p=35486#p35486

I would LOVE to see one of them try and answer bird's post..I have tried and tried over the years, and all I ever get back is "because she is a socialist" or some childish comment like that.

[ZoWie]

They tell you what they oppose at every opportunity. What they can't tell you is why they oppose it. They don't know. They oppose it because they were told to. They back it up with bogus statistics or archaic racist analyses of what they consider to be human nature. They completely ignore that most of their information comes from Ivy League heirs to large corporate fortunes who are going on a social analysis more appropriate to the 1600s.

Most can't even define socialism. I can barely define it, and I've read all the books and talked to hundreds of avowed socialists. In the current American political window, apologies to the professor for forgetting who put that concept in our vocabulary, socialism seems to be anything left of a currently pretty rightward skewed window.

BTW a political window is essentially a football field. The 50 yard line is defined by where on the political map the game is currently being played, and left and right are defined by it. The end zones are indeed well short of the full spectrum where much of the real political thought is happening. The main difference is that often in politics a safety gets confused with a touchdown.

[ProfX]

Seems the term originated in early 19th century French - 1820s-30s.

https://www.etymonline.com/word/socialism

Probably coined by the Comte de St-Simon, or one of his followers, to refer to people who lived in their utopian communes.

The concept, and term, DOES precede Marx.

[ZoWie]

Oh, it well predates Marx. Yes the French communes are a good guess, at least for utopian socialism.

I'm afraid the word has been bent, folded, spindled, and mutilated an awful lot since. Nowadays in the US, it seems to be used by a few thousand people to refer to themselves and by a few hundred million people to refer to anyone they perceive as too far left of them.

[Libertas]

I assume they want to get rid of SS and Medicare?

Why wont they tell us?

[carmenjonze]

I assume they want to get rid of SS and Medicare?

Why wont they tell us?

Because they are dishonest with themselves?

[ZoWie]

Recipients of both programs vote. The conservative workaround goes something like, "Stop government meddling in business, cut taxes to practically nothing, but don't touch my Medicare!" They are not intimidated by little things like reality.

I don't know how many times someone on medicare has told me that socialism is what they have in Russia, meaning that it's bad, like Hitler bad, or even worse. This is where we start the transition from political theory to rhetorical word salad.

[Libertas]

Recipients of both programs vote. The conservative workaround goes something like, "Stop government meddling in business, cut taxes to practically nothing, but don't touch my Medicare!" They are not intimidated by little things like reality.

I don't know how many times someone on medicare has told me that socialism is what they have in Russia, meaning that it's bad, like Hitler bad, or even worse. This is where we start the transition from political theory to rhetorical word salad.

And protecting from global warming is unnecessary because such a thing does not exist?

Hey, instead be honest and say of course it does, it is as bad as they say and worse, but it is too late and there is no point in doing all this stuff because it will interfere with economies etc. WRONG answer but it would be honest to an extent.

[ZoWie]

They're starting to grudgingly admit that climate change strongly appears to exist, but they still seem unclear on what's causing it. The situation is complicated slightly, but only slightly, by the fact that a major natural cycle is also in progress at the same time. It's muddied the causal texture that otherwise would be clear. It has partially hidden the fact that basing an economy on extracting various types of material from the planet, and burning them, was never the best idea.

[ProfX]

Climatologists are not unclear on what's primarily (not solely) causing it, and that's what matters to me.

It's weird, you look at the supposed naysayers - like Dixie Lee Ray - she's a meteorologist. Fine if I want tomorrow's weather, but she is not an expert on long term patterns in global climate.

[Libertas]

Climatologists are not unclear on what's primarily (not solely) causing it, and that's what matters to me.

It's weird, you look at the supposed naysayers - like Dixie Lee Ray - she's a meteorologist. Fine if I want tomorrow's weather, but she is not an expert on long term patterns in global climate.

The very fact that she would imply her expertise made her an expert on it proves she has no idea what she is talking about. It would be like an eye glass salesperson telling you how to do eye surgery.