Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

AZGrizFan wrote:Long rant

I'm not a socialist.

The items I'd like to see are common-sense measures in the rest of the developed world. No one is advocating that the government take away the means of production from private industries.

kalm wrote:

89Hen wrote:

They can only work in Iceland.

Iceland? I thought Finland was your standard bearer...oh wait...

∞∞∞ wrote:

89Hen wrote:Abortion out of left field?

Just revealing your hypocrisy about the tip-toe claim. Maybe one day you'll answer the question...

I am PRO-LIFE. Period. End of story.

You are pro-socialism, but you like to dodge, duck, dip, dive and dodge your way around the subject.

89Hen wrote:

∞∞∞ wrote: Just revealing your hypocrisy about the tip-toe claim. Maybe one day you'll answer the question...

I am PRO-LIFE. Period. End of story.

You are pro-socialism, but you like to dodge, duck, dip, dive and dodge your way around the subject.

Apparently "I'm not a socialist" means "I'm a socialist" to you. This either means you have no idea what socialism is, or you use "socialism" as an umbrella term to vilify economic policies you don't like.

And you still haven't answered the question I've asked in multiple threads, but if...

"Me: Do you believe a woman should be charged with murder for an abortion?
You: I am PRO-LIFE!"

...isn't a perfect example of tip-toeing, I have no idea what is.

∞∞∞ wrote:

89Hen wrote: I am PRO-LIFE. Period. End of story.

You are pro-socialism, but you like to dodge, duck, dip, dive and dodge your way around the subject.

Apparently "I'm not a socialist" means "I'm a socialist" to you. This either means you have no idea what socialism is, or you use "socialism" as an umbrella term to vilify economic policies you don't like.

And you still haven't answered the question I've asked in multiple threads, but if...

"Me: Do you believe a woman should be charged with murder for an abortion?
You: I am PRO-LIFE!"

...isn't a perfect example of tip-toeing, I have no idea what is.

The fact that I've said I don't have the answer for punishment on abortion but am 100% pro-life has little to do with you changing the definition of socialism to avoid calling yourself pro-socialism.

∞∞∞ wrote:

89Hen wrote: I am PRO-LIFE. Period. End of story.

You are pro-socialism, but you like to dodge, duck, dip, dive and dodge your way around the subject.

Apparently "I'm not a socialist" means "I'm a socialist" to you. This either means you have no idea what socialism is, or you use "socialism" as an umbrella term to vilify economic policies you don't like.

And you still haven't answered the question I've asked in multiple threads, but if...

"Me: Do you believe a woman should be charged with murder for an abortion?
You: I am PRO-LIFE!"

...isn't a perfect example of tip-toeing, I have no idea what is.

I think 89 has answered you,you just don't understand it.

89Hen wrote: The fact that I've said I don't have the answer for punishment on abortion but am 100% pro-life

That ^ describes a whole bunch of people right there - probably 85% of North America
with punishment ranging from zero to trail for murder

Damn near everybody is pro-life
I don't know anybody who isn't

Chizzang wrote:

89Hen wrote: The fact that I've said I don't have the answer for punishment on abortion but am 100% pro-life

That ^ describes a whole bunch of people right there - probably 85% of North America
with punishment ranging from zero to trail for murder

Damn near everybody is pro-life
I don't know anybody who isn't

mainstream donks, that’s who.

∞∞∞ wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:Long rant

I'm not a socialist.

The items I'd like to see are common-sense measures in the rest of the developed world. No one is advocating that the government take away the means of production from private industries.

Apparently you had your fucking funny bone removed rectally as well.

Chizzang wrote:

89Hen wrote: The fact that I've said I don't have the answer for punishment on abortion but am 100% pro-life

That ^ describes a whole bunch of people right there - probably 85% of North America
with punishment ranging from zero to trail for murder

Damn near everybody is pro-life
I don't know anybody who isn't

Then why are we seeing a slew of states trying to make late term more accessible?

I love whe people present their idea with the qualifier “common sense” in front of it...like that makes it the right answer...

When all it does is say “If you don’t agree with me, you have no common sense”...

kalm wrote:

89Hen wrote: The only reason we can't settle on the definition is that the left wants to pretend they've come up with new definition so as to not appear to be proponents of it.

Capitalism and socialism are economic terms neither of which shows up in the constitution (to go back to your post in question).

We are a mixed market economy like all of the rest of the developed world.

Socialism is just a big scary word.......

I just looked at my back pocket Constitution and I noticed a bunch of other words that aren’t in there


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

kalm wrote:

89Hen wrote: There are LOTS of words that aren't in the Constitution. I'd guess there are more words that aren't in it, than are in it. The basic tenet of capitalism is a free market. It's people like Trip (and apparently you) that think that because the word "capitalism" isn't in the Constitution that we shouldn't be "stuck" with it.

I'm perfectly fine with capitalism. I believe in the upward mobility, competition, and innovation it creates when regulated properly and democratic.

To many people, including some in Congress who you generally like to apologize for when someone here calls them socialists, “Regulated properly” means state control. It wasn’t too long ago that crazy Auntie Whatshername was throwing out the “N” word when referring to Big Oil

You get defensive when people attack command economies on here but you offer no specifics about how more regulation would work, or what it would look like. And that IS what you are arguing for, although you stay as vague as possible - so that you can claim that’s not what you were arguing fir when you get called on it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

∞∞∞ wrote:

kalm wrote:I'm perfectly fine with capitalism. I believe in the upward mobility, competition, and innovation it creates when regulated properly and democratic.

This.

For some reason they think regulatory protections and better benefits is "socialism."

Sounds a lot like your fellow travelers claiming Libertarians are for zero government


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

CID1990 wrote:

kalm wrote:
I'm perfectly fine with capitalism. I believe in the upward mobility, competition, and innovation it creates when regulated properly and democratic.

To many people, including some in Congress who you generally like to apologize for when someone here calls them socialists, “Regulated properly” means state control. It wasn’t too long ago that crazy Auntie Whatshername was throwing out the “N” word when referring to Big Oil

You get defensive when people attack command economies on here but you offer no specifics about how more regulation would work, or what it would look like. And that IS what you are arguing for, although you stay as vague as possible - so that you can claim that’s not what you were arguing fir when you get called on it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And for someone who owns the cs record for most grammatical corrections, you're pretty damned blasé when it comes to painting with brush strokes complicated economic terms like socialism.

I've recognized (and personally experienced) numerous times before the fine line between over-regulation and maintaining a level playing field. It's obviously highly subjective. If you desire an increasing income gap and shrinking middle class wealth and democratic power, you obviously favor less regulation.

As for specifics, there is no silver bullet, the law of unintended consequences comes into play, (and I'm just a football message board economist). Plus, the benefits of successful regulation like clean air, water, and food supply get lost in the shuffle.

But for starters, campaign finance reform would certainly help. Where corporations and people have less of an ability to direct government spending into their own industries and bank accounts or to write their own regulatory legislation. Restoring some version of Glass-Steagall would seem to be a positive given the 50 year track record of limited banking crises. A financial transactions tax seems like another worthy idea.

Why does "pro-life" end at birth for so many though???......

mainejeff wrote:Why does "pro-life" end at birth for so many though???......

Can't wait to hear this pre-written zinger MJ has loaded.

andy7171 wrote:

mainejeff wrote:Why does "pro-life" end at birth for so many though???......

Can't wait to hear this pre-written zinger MJ has loaded.

No zinger.....it's just that so many of these "pro-lifers" don't seem so pro-life when it comes to children's welfare once they are no longer a fetus....like cutting funds for poor children's food and healthcare.....the whole gun thing....trying to circumvent laws that protect children from dangerous chemicals and toxins....against funding for medical research that could save children lives. It goes on and on......they love being the political martyrs for the abortion debate.....they are nowhere to be seen once the child is born.

mainejeff wrote:

andy7171 wrote: Can't wait to hear this pre-written zinger MJ has loaded.

No zinger.....it's just that so many of these "pro-lifers" don't seem so pro-life when it comes to children's welfare once they are no longer a fetus....like cutting funds for poor children's food and healthcare.....the whole gun thing....trying to circumvent laws that protect children from dangerous chemicals and toxins....against funding for medical research that could save children lives. It goes on and on......they love being the political martyrs for the abortion debate.....they are nowhere to be seen once the child is born.

There's a lot of truth to this, plenty of time and money spent trying to make sure the baby gets to be born, and then comparatively much less time and money to help that baby for the next 18 years. It'll be something that will have to be resolved as science continues its march towards fetus viability almost to the point of conception. At least today pro-choicers can ignore science and hide behind the viability of a baby at around 20-22 weeks. What happens when we can take the fetus and put it in an artificial womb outside of a woman's body? Science is pretty clear, from conception onwards it's a human being. I don't think we're ready for the outcome when we say there is never an acceptable case of abortion once science succeeds in viability from conception onwards. But it's coming.

kalm wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
To many people, including some in Congress who you generally like to apologize for when someone here calls them socialists, “Regulated properly” means state control. It wasn’t too long ago that crazy Auntie Whatshername was throwing out the “N” word when referring to Big Oil

You get defensive when people attack command economies on here but you offer no specifics about how more regulation would work, or what it would look like. And that IS what you are arguing for, although you stay as vague as possible - so that you can claim that’s not what you were arguing fir when you get called on it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And for someone who owns the cs record for most grammatical corrections, you're pretty damned blasé when it comes to painting with brush strokes complicated economic terms like socialism.

I've recognized (and personally experienced) numerous times before the fine line between over-regulation and maintaining a level playing field. It's obviously highly subjective. If you desire an increasing income gap and shrinking middle class wealth and democratic power, you obviously favor less regulation.

As for specifics, there is no silver bullet, the law of unintended consequences comes into play, (and I'm just a football message board economist). Plus, the benefits of successful regulation like clean air, water, and food supply get lost in the shuffle.

But for starters, campaign finance reform would certainly help. Where corporations and people have less of an ability to direct government spending into their own industries and bank accounts or to write their own regulatory legislation. Restoring some version of Glass-Steagall would seem to be a positive given the 50 year track record of limited banking crises. A financial transactions tax seems like another worthy idea.

You sure are defensive

I prefer the term command economy but socialism works well also

But I do I like how you reverted back to defending things that are *not* typically socialist in nature ... it’s kind of a hybrid straw man

Chizzang wrote:

the lady could just as easily be Donks, the baby is illegals crossing the border, the kid drowning is foster kids in America.

mainejeff wrote:Why does "pro-life" end at birth for so many though???......

You'd have to ask them.

AZGrizFan wrote:

Chizzang wrote:
That ^ describes a whole bunch of people right there - probably 85% of North America
with punishment ranging from zero to trail for murder

Damn near everybody is pro-life
I don't know anybody who isn't

mainstream donks, that’s who.

New York State legislature and the Virginia governor are a few specific examples of pro murder.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

89Hen wrote:This is actually why I think our traffic is so bad. Yes, we have too many people on the road, but I'm telling you it's that people of different cultures drive very differently. When you have overcrowded roads with people driving very inconsistently... disaster.

Coming down 270 (four lane 65 mph at this point) yesterday after having lunch in Frederick, car enters traffic and I could tell immediately it was having trouble, most likely from entering too fast up the ramp. Over corrects and the fishtailing starts across all four lanes of traffic and back. Car goes up on two wheels at one point, amazingly coming within inches of several cars but not touching a sole. I have a front row seat because I'm the lead car in the next pack but saw it all developing and led our pack to a stop to observe. County cop right behind me puts on the lights and goes to the car that is now facing the wrong direction back in the first lane. I looked right into the car as I pass one lane over and made eye contact...