Weekend <em>Donkey Kong 64</em> marathon serves as a gathering place for much more.
Read the whole story
Read the whole story
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, video games, and the new online town square
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
MIPS would have been > ARM if somebody would have slapped SGI with a cluestick.
Upvote
-5
(0
/
-5)
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
“You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear: you moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for; you hired workers the rest of us paid to educate; you were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did.
“Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea? God bless. Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.”
-- Elizabeth Warren
"There is no such thing as a self-made man. Every businessman has used the vast American infrastructure, which the taxpayers paid for, to make his money. He did not make his money alone. He used taxpayer infrastructure. He got rich on what other taxpayers had paid for: the banking system, the Federal Reserve, the Treasury and Commerce Departments, and the judicial system, where nine-tenths of cases involve corporate law. These taxpayer investments support companies and wealthy investors. There are no self-made men! The wealthy have gotten rich using what previous taxpayers have paid for. They owe the taxpayers of this country a great deal and should be paying it back."
-- George Lakoff
Upvote
56
(56
/
0)
I'm going to point out that only one side does that, and it's not the side AOC is on.
Upvote
27
(29
/
-2)
It's not entirely socialism, but it's socialist in part. For example, say we were to get around to implementing single payer healthcare. That would necessitate the government stepping in, and performing a role normally reserved for the private sector in a pure laissez faire model, making it a public option. In this case, it'd be the government acting as an insurance provider, entirely funded through taxpayer dollars.
It's a socialist style model applied to one specific industry, funded through money garnered in the private sector that runs off another economic model.
That makes the market it's encompassed in sorta-socialist by dint of some socialism being in there. Or more accurately, a mixed market.
On the plus side, it'd shut some of the more panicky, self-righteous people right the fuck up.
...at least until they figure out it's sorta-socialist, then they'll start screaming again, and jumping down slippery slopes.
"If they make THAT socialist, what's stopping the government from making EVVVVERRRRYYYTHIIIINNNNGGG socialist?"
Upvote
15
(15
/
0)
Define a limited central government. I ask because even Yee Founding Fathers of Days Yore couldn't come to an agreement on that subject.
And the reason he's being downvoted isn't because we're reeling in cognitive dissonance at his unimpeachable grasp of reality, but because, at least as far as market models are concerned, you're all screaming about the evils of apples while the rest of us are talking about oranges.
"Oranges make great juice."
"BUT APPLES HAVE SEEDS YOU CAN SUCK DOWN YOUR THROAT THEN FUCKING DIE ON! WHY CAN YOU NOT SEE THIS?"
"...what?"
"Spoiled millennials, thinking everything's easy to juice!"
Upvote
39
(39
/
0)
When I say "socialism", or rather "Democratic Socialism", I mean "paying for essential services that benefit the public with tax money". The list of those essential services can vary, and we can have discussions about where that list starts and ends. It's indisputable that we all expect a certain level of "socialist" government services in our daily lives: public schools, police, fire, public roads. Some of us advocate to expand that list of necessary services to areas such as healthcare.Pure Socialism DOES, in fact, require that the means of production are socialized, or controlled by government. But I know what you mean. You mean a tempered version of socialism. As we have never lived under pure capitalism, rather a tempered version of capitalism.Conversely, the new generations HAVE seen the effects of nearly unchecked capitalism, and they're not fans of it at all. Check out some polling of Millenials about their attitudes about capitalism vs socialism, I think you'd be pretty surprised at how little they are "scared" of socialism, and how little respect they show towards capitalism. They came to age in the last decade where they were told "pay hundreds of thousands to go to college, you'll get a great education and a great job!" and they saw how unchecked capitalism crashed the economy and led to the loss of many of their families' homes and their parents' jobs, and then the very folks responsible for this crash went about their lives with no one being punished for those crimes.Good ol' Overton Window: when New Deal policies are crazy communism, and Blue Dogs are the real Democrats.The same dynamic is occurring in the DNC. Many people I know that are still members of the party tell me so. They tell me there has been a seismic change in the party. Generally, they put it down to the moderate HRC being beaten by the extreme and populist Trump. That is, the Dems think they NEED extreme populism, too, to stay electorally relevant. Just on the other end of the spectrum. I have always said that is a foolish POV, however, results are telling me I was wrong. They got the House back for the first time in nearly a decade on the back of the more left wing populists. And the further left Dem policy has moved, the better their polling has become. Those facts alone will ensure that moderates in the DNC, as they are already within the RNC, are sidelined, both in profile and influence. People like me can scream at the sky all we want about the demise of the moderate, but it is simply democracy in action. I am sure the new polar extremism in our polity will produce less than desirable results for our country - and then we can return to a more sane polity. That's the good thing about Democracy - it can quickly adapt to a changing electorate. I think many people realize they made a mistake voting for Trump. As they will also realize, in the fullness of time, that voting for the new "AOC" Dems, was a mistake. I just hope that not too much damage is done while thick voters work out that the extremes on both sides are harmful to the country. The Trump fuck up has already lead to more climate vandalism. I fear that the coming age of "AOC", while good for the environment, will cause serious economic harm. But I have been wrong about evrything since late 2015, so what the fuck do I know
But this new generation have not really seen or been made to feel the effects of socialism. I think they may change their views once they see the complete effects (good and bad) of socialism.
Personally, I feel capitalism is a good thing and has brought us many good things, but when those same capitalists continue to crap on us, we severely need to reign in the worst of the capitalist abuses and implement many "socialist" programs such as universal healthcare, paid higher education, paid sick leave and parental leave, a reasonable national minimum wage, etc.
I'd consider myself an FDR Democrat, not a Venezuelan socialist, but personally I don't see a problem with also calling myself a "Democratic Socialist" - other than the fact that it's not too electorally popular with some folks. I do admit it's not exactly politically wise to label yourself as a "socialist" like Bernie did. Which is why I admire what AOC is doing: advocating classic "Democratic socialist" policies, exactly the same ones that Bernie advocated, while avoiding the politically damaging "socialist" label that Bernie embraced. Advocate good policies, not labels. Like many others have pointed out in this thread, many of the policies that both Bernie and AOC advocate, like universal healthcare and a high marginal tax rate on the rich, actually poll quite well across political lines.
No I don't want the government to take over the means of production. That's communism, and communism is stupid. But we can no longer continue down our current path of just letting big business and entrenched industries like health insurance companies screw us on a daily basis, in the name of the "free market."
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism
The fact that millenials look at their relative standard of living in this country and complain is pretty "spolit" in my opinion. Just my opinion, don't shoot me. Again, why are all the people trying to come across our southern border from socialist states? If our system is sooooo horrible? And why isn't Cortez trying to emigrate to those places. Adn don't give me the "they are inherently poorer. Venezuela is an prime example. Per capita, it was one of the richest countries in the World. Then they sold the populist notion to the people that "free everything" is awesome. They are now one of the poorest. I believe that is what you might call "empirical evidence". But then again, you have countries where standards of living are not too bad - like Norway or Sweden. But they are FAR more examples of failure than success. And personally, I could not stand Norway. Beautiful country but Nanny State as it gets - good luck finding a liquor store in Stavanger. But I know many on here support that style of "protecting you from yourself" horseshit....just that I don't. Bottom line, I found the place boring in the extreme. And the cost of everything....phew....they better hope the oil does not run dry and that we continue to foolishly burn fossil fuels.
I am not for rolling the dice on socialism. Universal health care? Absolutely. Free tertiary education that is slowly paid back through higher taxes if and when graduates start making over a certain amount (see how they do it in Australia)? Of course. That is not socialism. Socialism boils down to the phrase "from each according to his means, to each according to his need". If that's the deal, then I want to be "needy". And I certainly do not want means - as they involve giving up a lot of the short amount of time we get in this life. Sorry, I know I sound selfish, but when I pull a 14 hour day, I do it for my family and I. I do not do it for anyone else. I would much prefer to not work, especially if all my families needs and wants were guaranteed. That way, I could spend soooo much more time with my family. Or for others without a family, they could spend more time doing whatever is they would rather be doing than working.
If you were to get $x per month no matter how much you worked, hopw much would you work? I am being honest and telling you I would not work a minute. In an office, or factory or farm or whatever. I would probably be productive in certain ways (cooking, crafty shit around the house) but sitting in an office and trying to hit deadlines etc. Nah, I'm good.
When you say socialism, you keep going back to "the government owns everything and tells you what to do".
We're talking about two entirely different things. You started out OK on your above comment when you talked about a mixed economy, a tempered version of socialism - which is what AOC and myself are talking about wanting - then you went all "scary socialism". Nobody's talking about full on socialism like Venezuela - except conservatives, trying to scare-monger.
Upvote
43
(43
/
0)
Some people are so programmed by their masters they just keep bleating the things they are taught over and over and over again. Socialism!! Venezuela!! Blind capitalist jingoism!! Ayn Rand stuff I read that makes me cool and intelligent sounding!!
We get it. You did everything yourself, you birthed and delivered yourself, invented all knowledge by which you educated yourself, then went on to build the roads to your company whose building you built, with tools you made yourself. You are John Galt, baby. You don't need a fucking thing from anyone. They probably want to leech off you anyway, like the lazy, socialist (ooh, that magic word again!) loser they are.
You'd think after being used like a chump and fucked over a million times by the puppet masters people would learn but no, they keep the faith and double down on chasing the carrot. Because someday, someday they'll be the master, yup. And then they'll get to piss on the fools and tell them it's raining gold. Yup.
We get it. You did everything yourself, you birthed and delivered yourself, invented all knowledge by which you educated yourself, then went on to build the roads to your company whose building you built, with tools you made yourself. You are John Galt, baby. You don't need a fucking thing from anyone. They probably want to leech off you anyway, like the lazy, socialist (ooh, that magic word again!) loser they are.
You'd think after being used like a chump and fucked over a million times by the puppet masters people would learn but no, they keep the faith and double down on chasing the carrot. Because someday, someday they'll be the master, yup. And then they'll get to piss on the fools and tell them it's raining gold. Yup.
Upvote
26
(27
/
-1)
Juicero didn't come out of /nowhere/.
Damn them. DAMN THEM ALL!
I'd say it's due to Republicans frothing at the mouth in anger every time she breathes.
Upvote
21
(21
/
0)
As ever, the knuckle-dragger demographic needs the conservosphere to tell them what to be afraid and/or resentful of this week. And next week. And the week after, ad infinitum. If some fucktard at Fox hadn't gotten a boner for AOC nobody outside of her district would know who the fuck she is.
Upvote
18
(18
/
0)
But he's wrong about who pays for those "juicy" government programs. "Capitalists" don't pay for that. *I* pay for that. Me, as a regular Joe worker, out of my taxes. Along with the other hundreds of millions of other regular folks like me.
I hear ya. Yes, I'm the lonely one upvote.
I am absolutely shocked that your post attracted so many downvotes when it was factually and historically correct. Wow. The following phrase in particular is beyond dispute...at least I thought it was:
"This country was founded and fought for on the basis of limiting the power of central government and a central church...and the opportunity to benefit from the fruit of your labors and ambitions."
And you are correct about AOC and her "tried many times before and failed" ideas. They will fail. But I worry how many lives will be destroyed on the way to finding out what we should already know by now through the failure of other nations that have tried socialism.
If you had have come to me in the mid 90s after the fall of the Soviet Union and shown me today, I would have thought you slipped me some LSD while I wasn't looking...and like where the fuck is my hover board and sports almanac
And for the most part, I don't take a lot of advantage of government programs, because generally I don't need it. I've made a decent living for the most part. Right now though, I'm unemployed, and unemployment insurance payments are a life-saver. Other folks are often not as lucky as I am though, and they may need more help from their government. I'm happy they can get that hand up when they need it, and I don't begrudge them using the "juicy" fruits of my tax money. If you give people a hand up when they need it, eventually for most they'll get back on their feet, and become productive tax-paying members of society. The vast majority of able-bodied folks would rather work than rely on others.
And I'd like folks that have benefited from the fruits of my labor, from the services paid for by my tax dollars, like public roads, schools, fire, police, etc. to actually share the massive billions of dollars of profits that they made with the rest of us. Corporate profits are at all-time highs in this country.
Do I want to take all their money? No of course not. They just need to pay a higher share than they are currently. It's not some radical view. Like many others have pointed out, we've had much higher marginal tax rates at many points in our history, and our economy has done just fine during those times.
I pay my taxes dutifully every year. I'd like the rich and big business to do the same.
Upvote
40
(40
/
0)
Upvote
30
(30
/
0)
And this means what to you exactly? I completely agree with her stance. Did Ben Shapiro run for office in her district when she was running? If not, then why the hell would she owe some random guy a debate? Why does she owe him anything?
Upvote
36
(36
/
0)
She didn't want to talk to some random person? It's not like she was running against him or anything.
Do I get to throw a hissy fit if Lindsey Graham won't come to my tea party and debate me?
And who the fuck is Ben Shapiro anyway?
Upvote
37
(37
/
0)
I can't fathom that you are actually serious. Your right, you can't make this shit up. A lot of people are abjectly brain damaged. Wow.
Upvote
36
(36
/
0)
Because Shapiro's an attention whore and a stupid person's idea of a smart person. There's no upside to her giving him attention.
Upvote
38
(38
/
0)
Apparently it didn't, because what you're showing, and what you're stating are two entirely different things.
I mean, I can just about grasp the logical angle you're attempting to come at this from. In your mind, you think that if she's saying that repeated calls to debate are the same as getting catcalled, and catcalls are probably considered sexual harassment by the liberal folk, she must saying that Shapiro's call to debate is tantamount to sexual harassment.
...that's a shit stupid conclusion based upon a vapid assumption. Do you not feel stupid when you say stuff like this? I would.
Upvote
40
(40
/
0)
OK, I've got one Bingo on my Conservative Bingo card, but keep posting because I'm working on a blackout.
Upvote
39
(39
/
0)
Maybe. She's still not calling it sexual harassment though.
Upvote
24
(24
/
0)
"Benjamin Aaron Shapiro is an American conservative political commentator, writer, and lawyer" according to his own Twitter bio.
Yeah...I'm going to go with "he is just some random person."
Upvote
45
(45
/
0)
An attention-seeking shill for dodgy supplements, much like most of his ilk:
https://twitter.com/AndrewKirell/status ... 7908096006
[edit] Also, I suggest not quoting the drunken troll. Doing so just ensures their idiocy remains visible to bait others.
Upvote
29
(29
/
0)
Upvote
30
(30
/
0)
Except she didn't say it was catcalling. She said it was like catcalling in its disingenuous nature. I mean, she, quite literally, spells it out. I can't fathom having such poor comprehension.
Upvote
43
(43
/
0)
Shapiro actually used to be a somewhat decent, if not a little overly hyperbolic political commentator. I'd occasionally read his stuff back when.
Then Trump happened.
Upvote
14
(14
/
0)
Ooh, destroying the libs with facts and logic! Getting closer to Bingo blackout!
(Yes I realize your post was sarcastic, shut up, I'm taking it anyway!)
Upvote
26
(26
/
0)
Yeah that was the true beginning of the end for any remaining true Republican in the US...
Upvote
7
(8
/
-1)
Now I'm curious: what's a "true Republican", and why would Trump rubbing their noses in what their party's *been* for decades be the last straw?
Upvote
15
(15
/
0)
Yikes. I was not aware he was peddling that junk.
I will not defend the indefensible.
Upvote
-1
(3
/
-4)
I consider the party as it was in the 80's, early 90's to be the last standard bearers of the true Goldwaterian Republicans. The party's downfall began with Gingrich, and Trump now represents its inevitable conclusion.
Upvote
4
(6
/
-2)