The Critical Thinking Ability of Liberal Media Journalists has Significantly Deteriorated.

Well critical thinking has been down hill ever since man has lost it fear of it homo phobic or homo erotic god( I can't tell any more). Watching an calculating our every move like some pervert waiting to strike with a vengeance without any explanation as to why to keep us on our toes.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: chr0naut

That's because you're using free in the sense of not paying. That goes against the idea of exchange. An exchange implies a trade of one thing of value for another, either good or service.

What free means in that context isn't that I receive a thing of value for nothing on my part, but that I am free to seek that exchange or not as I desire. I am free to produce what I wish, as I wish, as much as I wish, and then to exchange those goods or services on my terms as I find acceptable with others who are doing the same.

Socialism controls everything about that process. Of course it needs productive businesses because it needs goods and services it can control, but in the control, the producers - the people doing the work - lose the freedom to exchange those goods and services as they desire on terms they deem acceptable.

However, without producers, the economy, any economy, dies. Venezuela has discovered this. Russia discovered it too. Central planning and control cannot replace the freedom of the free market and the drive entrepreneurs who are working for themselves tend to have.

The drive to enforce equity kills prosperity.

You keep forgetting that the countries like Venezuela and Russia were governed by other traditional political paradigms, before falling to socialism.

Where countries have turned to socialism is a clear indicator of the failure of the previous system (most of them capitalist, historically).

And the thing is, more capitalist economies have failed and been replaced by other systems than there are failed socialist economies.

What about Germany's hyperinflation which led to the rise of Nazism? Wouldn't that be a good example of the failure of pure capitalism?

What about the economies of countries like Norway, Holland, Denmark, Sweden, France, the UK, Ireland and Scotland. They are modern socialist based democracies and they are fairly strong economically (although Brexit was probably a failure for some of them, economically).

Not to mention the economic power of strongly socialist/communist countries like Russia and China.

Yes, socialist countries have had issues but so has every country.

America had people jumping from the windows of high rise buildings during one of its many failures of capitalism.

And capitalism is not about an equal exchange, that is barter.

Capitalism is about making a profit on every transaction and the mandatory requirement to do so, or you fail.

originally posted by: Guiltyguitarist

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Guiltyguitarist
a reply to: Guiltyguitarist

George Carlin said “think about how dumb the average person is. Now realize that half of them are even dumber.”
Our country is about 50/50 democrat/republican. The left can’t meme, or take a joke, or do basic math(aaand they pass bills to find out what’s in them). I hypothesize that the more intelligent a person is, the more likely they’ll vote republican.
I’ll cite this MSDNC gaffe as an example

Surely the vast majority of liberals and leftists are academics. Academics are towards the top of the IQ list and are definitely the educated - I mean, it's what they do!

And, really, do you think the creation of funny or insulting pictures an intellectual achievement?

Very many comedians are leftists and liberals. They can take a joke, but they know the difference between a joke and an insult.

They also can do basic math very well.

You see what happens when those 'further down the 'cognitive ability list' try and reason. LOL.

You confuse education with indoctrination.

Do I?

There is a big difference. There shouldn’t be, but there is.

So, they are indoctrinated with Computer Science, or Mathematics, or Physics, or Archaeology, or Literature, or History?

I think the difference between indoctrination and education is quite clear for the majority of people. Let alone those who are academics.

You are right that many comedians now are liberal. I would argue that today’s comedians can not take a joke. Hell, they aren’t even funny, just trendy. Again big difference.

Fair enough, some are trendy. Some are unfunny. The unfunny ones usually don't get to be trendy, though.

That would be as illogical as electing a world leader based upon his game show hosting performance and rich, privileged kid status.

And no they can not do basic math very well. Mathematics stems from the logic and reason side of the brain. Hence this whole thread in the first place.

Thank you for your concise summary of the Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica. You clearly are an academic!

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: chr0naut

That's because you're using free in the sense of not paying. That goes against the idea of exchange. An exchange implies a trade of one thing of value for another, either good or service.

What free means in that context isn't that I receive a thing of value for nothing on my part, but that I am free to seek that exchange or not as I desire. I am free to produce what I wish, as I wish, as much as I wish, and then to exchange those goods or services on my terms as I find acceptable with others who are doing the same.

Socialism controls everything about that process. Of course it needs productive businesses because it needs goods and services it can control, but in the control, the producers - the people doing the work - lose the freedom to exchange those goods and services as they desire on terms they deem acceptable.

However, without producers, the economy, any economy, dies. Venezuela has discovered this. Russia discovered it too. Central planning and control cannot replace the freedom of the free market and the drive entrepreneurs who are working for themselves tend to have.

The drive to enforce equity kills prosperity.

You keep forgetting that the countries like Venezuela and Russia were governed by other traditional political paradigms, before falling to socialism.

Where countries have turned to socialism is a clear indicator of the failure of the previous system (most of them capitalist, historically).

And the thing is, more capitalist economies have failed and been replaced by other systems than there are failed socialist economies.

What about Germany's hyperinflation which led to the rise of Nazism? Wouldn't that be a good example of the failure of pure capitalism?

What about the economies of countries like Norway, Holland, Denmark, Sweden, France, the UK, Ireland and Scotland. They are modern socialist based democracies and they are fairly strong economically (although Brexit was probably a failure for some of them, economically).

Not to mention the economic power of strongly socialist/communist countries like Russia and China.

Yes, socialist countries have had issues but so has every country.

America had people jumping from the windows of high rise buildings during one of its many failures of capitalism.

And capitalism is not about an equal exchange, that is barter.

Capitalism is about making a profit on every transaction and the mandatory requirement to do so, or you fail.

1) Socialism requires a vibrant economy with affluent people who can be taxed and their earnings taken from them. Socialism is the epitome of greed. Socialism is a parasite on Capitalism. Capitalism does not require a government structure or economic environment to get started, in fact it thrives with limited government oversight and in an economic vacuum. We can haggle over how much regulation is required to reign in capitalism, but most people will acknowledge that capitalism needs some amount of laws to keep it from fully taking advantage of the customer. 'Let the buyer beware' is a quaint saying, but it requires the buyer to have some common sense and discipline.

2) Capitalism never guarantees success. Capitalism guarantees opportunity. Just because a person opens a business in a capitalist environment is not a guarantee it will prosper. That business will have to compete against other similar businesses to draw in customers, i.e. survival of the fittest, and the smart customer benefits because they will find the best bang for their buck.

Socialism creates a 'one size fits all' environment and squashes individualism.

3) Norway, Holland, Denmark, Sweden, France, the UK, Ireland and Scotland will kindly ask you to please stop calling them socialist. They are capitalist societies with extreme taxation to fund a welfare state.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

3) Norway, Holland, Denmark, Sweden, France, the UK, Ireland and Scotland will kindly ask you to please stop calling them socialist. They are capitalist societies with extreme taxation to fund a welfare state.

Thats not the case, it's a mix of both capitalism and socialism, the social aspect focuses on health and wellbeing which results in a strong workforce to keep regular payments back into the system.

The people in those countries enjoy plenty of time off, some even have a month of paid leave specifically for a trip away on top of the 4 weeks paid leave per year and aswell has excellent healthcare.

It's no surprise they are for the most part pretty happy and have the highest standards of living in the world.

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
We can haggle over how much regulation is required to reign in capitalism...

You would be haggling over how socialist capitalism needs to be. Would it still be capitalism at that point?

3) Norway, Holland, Denmark, Sweden, France, the UK, Ireland and Scotland will kindly ask you to please stop calling them socialist. They are capitalist societies with extreme taxation to fund a welfare state.

They would seem to fit the wiki definition of social democracies:

Social democracy is a political, social and economic philosophy that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a liberal democratic polity and a capitalist-oriented economy.

Social democracy

You could probably include the US in that list, to the chagrin of many americans.

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: chr0naut

That's because you're using free in the sense of not paying. That goes against the idea of exchange. An exchange implies a trade of one thing of value for another, either good or service.

What free means in that context isn't that I receive a thing of value for nothing on my part, but that I am free to seek that exchange or not as I desire. I am free to produce what I wish, as I wish, as much as I wish, and then to exchange those goods or services on my terms as I find acceptable with others who are doing the same.

Socialism controls everything about that process. Of course it needs productive businesses because it needs goods and services it can control, but in the control, the producers - the people doing the work - lose the freedom to exchange those goods and services as they desire on terms they deem acceptable.

However, without producers, the economy, any economy, dies. Venezuela has discovered this. Russia discovered it too. Central planning and control cannot replace the freedom of the free market and the drive entrepreneurs who are working for themselves tend to have.

The drive to enforce equity kills prosperity.

You keep forgetting that the countries like Venezuela and Russia were governed by other traditional political paradigms, before falling to socialism.

Where countries have turned to socialism is a clear indicator of the failure of the previous system (most of them capitalist, historically).

And the thing is, more capitalist economies have failed and been replaced by other systems than there are failed socialist economies.

What about Germany's hyperinflation which led to the rise of Nazism? Wouldn't that be a good example of the failure of pure capitalism?

What about the economies of countries like Norway, Holland, Denmark, Sweden, France, the UK, Ireland and Scotland. They are modern socialist based democracies and they are fairly strong economically (although Brexit was probably a failure for some of them, economically).

Not to mention the economic power of strongly socialist/communist countries like Russia and China.

Yes, socialist countries have had issues but so has every country.

America had people jumping from the windows of high rise buildings during one of its many failures of capitalism.

And capitalism is not about an equal exchange, that is barter.

Capitalism is about making a profit on every transaction and the mandatory requirement to do so, or you fail.

1) Socialism requires a vibrant economy with affluent people who can be taxed and their earnings taken from them. Socialism is the epitome of greed. Socialism is a parasite on Capitalism. Capitalism does not require a government structure or economic environment to get started, in fact it thrives with limited government oversight and in an economic vacuum. We can haggle over how much regulation is required to reign in capitalism, but most people will acknowledge that capitalism needs some amount of laws to keep it from fully taking advantage of the customer. 'Let the buyer beware' is a quaint saying, but it requires the buyer to have some common sense and discipline.

2) Capitalism never guarantees success. Capitalism guarantees opportunity. Just because a person opens a business in a capitalist environment is not a guarantee it will prosper. That business will have to compete against other similar businesses to draw in customers, i.e. survival of the fittest, and the smart customer benefits because they will find the best bang for their buck.

Socialism creates a 'one size fits all' environment and squashes individualism.

3) Norway, Holland, Denmark, Sweden, France, the UK, Ireland and Scotland will kindly ask you to please stop calling them socialist. They are capitalist societies with extreme taxation to fund a welfare state.

You could replace every mention of the word 'socialism' in that post with the word 'capitalism' and it would be just as true.

Capitalism requires regulation, even if it is just to prevent the poor from rising up against the rich. Just as socialism requires a fair amount of capital generation to run the social schemes that protect the poor and promote public health and safety.

And it seems that the fact that, despite all that, capitalism doesn't guarantee success, would be a failing.

Fox CNN, the whole gang of MS news is all opinion propaganda.

Oa reply to: blueman12

Manipulation of history, science literature etc can easily turn education into indotrinaction. Having opinion coupled with fact adding emotional bias to the mix and it’s a more complex world than simply learning basic math and reading skills.

It’s almost as illogical as supporting a candidate based entirely on their gender! I’m with her, ha! Talk about demeaning... let them stand for their own merits, not what’s between their legs lol. a reply to: chr0naut

originally posted by: chr0naut
One of your points is easily countered by the fact that 10% of the US population own 99% of the wealth. Most of these top 10% pay almost no tax.

3 pages and you still haven't been able to back this up. The links you gave when challenged about this do not support this statement. In fact, the Wikipedia link you gave actually proves your first point wrong. It says the top 10% in the US own about 70% of the wealth.

Now stop carefully avoiding this and answer the real question.

Where did you get the idea the top 10% pay "almost no tax?"

And while we're at it, what is "almost no tax?" That's vague and open to interpretation.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Guiltyguitarist

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Guiltyguitarist
a reply to: Guiltyguitarist

George Carlin said “think about how dumb the average person is. Now realize that half of them are even dumber.”
Our country is about 50/50 democrat/republican. The left can’t meme, or take a joke, or do basic math(aaand they pass bills to find out what’s in them). I hypothesize that the more intelligent a person is, the more likely they’ll vote republican.
I’ll cite this MSDNC gaffe as an example

Surely the vast majority of liberals and leftists are academics. Academics are towards the top of the IQ list and are definitely the educated - I mean, it's what they do!

And, really, do you think the creation of funny or insulting pictures an intellectual achievement?

Very many comedians are leftists and liberals. They can take a joke, but they know the difference between a joke and an insult.

They also can do basic math very well.

You see what happens when those 'further down the 'cognitive ability list' try and reason. LOL.

You confuse education with indoctrination.

Do I?

There is a big difference. There shouldn’t be, but there is.

So, they are indoctrinated with Computer Science, or Mathematics, or Physics, or Archaeology, or Literature, or History?

I think the difference between indoctrination and education is quite clear for the majority of people. Let alone those who are academics.

You are right that many comedians now are liberal. I would argue that today’s comedians can not take a joke. Hell, they aren’t even funny, just trendy. Again big difference.

Fair enough, some are trendy. Some are unfunny. The unfunny ones usually don't get to be trendy, though.

That would be as illogical as electing a world leader based upon his game show hosting performance and rich, privileged kid status.

And no they can not do basic math very well. Mathematics stems from the logic and reason side of the brain. Hence this whole thread in the first place.

Thank you for your concise summary of the Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica. You clearly are an academic!

I could again counter your argument with other facts about how dumb democrats are but I don’t have to. The fact that this thread exists is proof enough. Democrat policies like no child left behind have crippled the minds of the young. Now the young are of voting age and are too stupid to do third grade math.
Oh and hank Johnson thought Guam would capsize from too many soldiers and Pelosi has to pass bills to know what’s in them. 😂😂😂😂
I don’t know how anyone could defend that level of stupidity but if you’ve got the cahones I’ll give it a read.

PS. With three degrees under my belt I guess you could call me an academic. But I earned those in my twenties when I was young and impressionable.

a reply to: carewemust

I stopped watching mainstream media years ago. I use to be able to switch between liberal and conservative news outlets to get an accurate picture of the story, but these days...forget about it! They are all corporate shills. Capitalism run amok isn't good for "the people", just the investors.
That's why it's all garbage now.

it's always been a mix of capitalism and socialism that has made societies function the best....

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
We can haggle over how much regulation is required to reign in capitalism...

You would be haggling over how socialist capitalism needs to be. Would it still be capitalism at that point?

Regulation != Socialism, so yes it is still Capitalism.

For the rest, you should steer clear of wikipedia as a reference for your argument...

originally posted by: chr0naut

You could replace every mention of the word 'socialism' in that post with the word 'capitalism' and it would be just as true.

No, it wouldn't.

Capitalism requires regulation, even if it is just to prevent the poor from rising up against the rich. Just as socialism requires a fair amount of capital generation to run the social schemes that protect the poor and promote public health and safety.

Yes, socialism has to be a parasite on the economy. I said that. But since socialism kills capital generation, it's both greedy and self-destructive.

And it seems that the fact that, despite all that, capitalism doesn't guarantee success, would be a failing.

I never said it did. Nothing can guarantee success. That's not a failing, that's reality.

originally posted by: jimmyx
it's always been a mix of capitalism and socialism that has made societies function the best....

Repeat after me, Regulations & Laws != Socialism

Taxing a business or customer and using that revenue to purchase goods and services from a private source then distributing those goods and services as the government sees fit is not socialism.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

It certainly wouldn't be laissez faire for some, so it wouldn't capitalism.

For the rest, it would be some new definitions some just can't digest, but it is what it is.

Its all about money. The headlines get more and more inflammatory as they fight over a shrinking pool of eyeballs who want to watch their product. There is no market for calm, steady discussion so you just don't see that anymore. a reply to: carewemust

originally posted by: Anathros

originally posted by: blueman12
Dear god. Go ____ your self. Fox news has been an abysmal source of bias news. Start calling out both sides and maybe ill agree with you.

originally posted by: blueman12
Carewemust you are a cancer on ats. All you ever do is post politically biased news. I got it mate. You hate democrats. No need to post nonstop shiat because Qanon failed at delivering anything real.

No need to get triggered. If you don't like what he posts, why do you read it? Your reaction only highlights what he mentioned regarding "critical thinking ability".

Ding ding ding we have a winner. Dude got butthurt bad. Lol

a reply to: PapaBoogaloo

Guess you missed this.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
It helps when you catch up on a thread before posting.