Trump now accused of colluding....

[GMDino]

(09-13-2018, 11:23 AM)michaelsean Wrote: No I don't believe government services are socialism.  Government and therefore popular ownership of industry is socialism.  I understand that is a pretty simple definition and I eagerly await your novella in response.  

Don't tell me...tell the conservatives.

Medicare is a socialist program...paid for by all of.  That we have a capitalist country that creates that does change the aspects of the program itself.

It was a big part of the argument against single payer...or really any health care reform.

I have no problem with it.  Many on the right do.

[*michaelsean*]

(09-13-2018, 12:02 PM)GMDino Wrote: Don't tell me...tell the conservatives.

Medicare is a socialist program...paid for by all of.  That we have a capitalist country that creates that does change the aspects of the program itself.

It was a big part of the argument against single payer...or really any health care reform.

I have no problem with it.  Many on the right do.

You are the one who posted it.  

[GMDino]

(09-13-2018, 11:10 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Models show that more extreme weather will become more common as a result of global climate change. Therefore, the scientific illiterate that ignore the human impact on climate change and those that push policies that ignore climate science are complicit in this. I'm not sure what the controversy is.

Trump's name was involved.  They have to protect him.

[GMDino]

(09-13-2018, 12:07 PM)michaelsean Wrote: You are the one who posted it.  

Indeed.  Conservatives love capitalism for their profits and socialism for their losses.

They will oppose "big government" and "social programs" while cashing their check when the disaster befalls them personally.

And?

[Dill]

(09-13-2018, 11:23 AM)michaelsean Wrote: No I don't believe government services are socialism.  Government and therefore popular ownership of industry is socialism.  I understand that is a pretty simple definition and I eagerly await your novella in response.  

Well I agree that a socialist state would be one in which the means of production--or at least mass production--are publicly owned. That may open the question of "degrees" of socialism. Some, for example, equate environmental and safety regulation of private industry with government or public control, and therefore deem such regulation "socialist." That is how the tag usual gets applied to Democrats, right?

My question was not whether government services in toto were socialism, but whether some could be characterized as "socialist," like Dino's example of Medicare. 

So are you saying or implying then that individual government policies (applied as programs and services) cannot be socialist?   Or once services become "government" then they are not socialist, even though their costs are socialized?  I have not previously thought about this and do not have a prefab answer. Your previous comments just raised the question in my mind.

I also ask because if Conservatives, as you say, are right when they call Democrats "socialists," they must be saying that Democrats want public ownership of private industry, or socialist policies, or something. Do they?

[*michaelsean*]

(09-13-2018, 12:15 PM)GMDino Wrote: Indeed.  Conservatives love capitalism for their profits and socialism for their losses.

They will oppose "big government" and "social programs" while cashing their check when the disaster befalls them personally.

And?

I'm confused.  Do you agree with your post or no?

[*michaelsean*]

(09-13-2018, 12:23 PM)Dill Wrote: Well I agree that a socialist state would be one in which the means of production--or at least mass production--are publicly owned. That may open the question of "degrees" of socialism. Some, for example, equate environmental and safety regulation of private industry with government or public control, and therefore deem such regulation "socialist." That is how the tag usual gets applied to Democrats, right?

My question was not whether government services in toto were socialism, but whether some could be characterized as "socialist," like Dino's example of Medicare. 

So are you saying or implying then that individual government policies (applied as programs and services) cannot be socialist?   Or once services become "government" then they are not socialist, even though their costs are socialized?  I have not previously thought about this and do not have a prefab answer. Your previous comments just raised the question in my mind.

I also ask because if Conservatives, as you say, are right when they call Democrats "socialists," they must be saying that Democrats want public ownership of private industry, or socialist policies, or something. Do they?

To answer your last first, I don't say conservatives are right when the call Democrats socialists, just that Dino's meme would imply that they are correct.

When I think of socialism, I think of industry.  When Castro took over the cigar industry from seed to retail, that would be socialism.  I assume they did the same with rum, but I'm not certain.  

The military socializes cost.  Everything the government does socializes cost, but no I don't agree that makes it socialist.  

[Belsnickel]

(09-13-2018, 01:20 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I'm confused.  Do you agree with your post or no?

I believe the meme at the start of all of this is intended to mock the misinformed that refer to social programs as socialism and pretty much call any government program they disagree with such. The problem with this is that by calling those programs socialism, even in meme form, it perpetuates the misinformation and causes confusion, as evidenced here.

[*michaelsean*]

(09-13-2018, 01:27 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I believe the meme at the start of all of this is intended to mock the misinformed that refer to social programs as socialism and pretty much call any government program they disagree with such. The problem with this is that by calling those programs socialism, even in meme form, it perpetuates the misinformation and causes confusion, as evidenced here.

Except I see those same memes talking about police and fire, and they are serious.  I have no reason to believe this is any less serious.

[GMDino]

(09-13-2018, 01:20 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I'm confused.  Do you agree with your post or no?

I agree that many who decry socialism also think all social programs are socialism and should be stopped.  And then will use said programs when they are affected themselves.

[Belsnickel]

(09-13-2018, 01:31 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Except I see those same memes talking about police and fire, and they are serious.  I have no reason to believe this is any less serious.

It is my understanding that those memes are taking the misinformed beliefs to the absurd level in an effort at mockery. But then again, ignorance is not partisan.

[*PhilHos*]

(09-13-2018, 11:10 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Models show that more extreme weather will become more common as a result of global climate change. Therefore, the scientific illiterate that ignore the human impact on climate change and those that push policies that ignore climate science are complicit in this. I'm not sure what the controversy is.

So you have no problem blaming Trump for this upcoming hurricane? 

[hollodero]

(09-13-2018, 12:01 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: I do question humanity's ability to accurately record all hurricanes and the category of them earlier than modern ages. In today's society we have satellites watching most of the planet.

Keep in mind until not that long ago, people thought Rogue Waves were a sailor myth. Then once they were proven to be a fact, they thought they were a rare occurrence. Then once we started getting satellites watching the world from up high, it turned out that they were actually pretty common.

Any information that comes on hurricanes frequency/category that happened before we had full satellite coverage watching our coasts sending information down to us, I will take with a grain of salt.

Not to say that what you said isn't necessarily true, just that I will look upon a vague general claim like that with some skepticism.

...as you should. Of course. As far as I know, there's no definite answer to that anyway. What is pretty clear by now is that water temperature plays a major role in forming hurricanes. It's also a fact that anthropogenic CO2 emissions rose the level of CO2 in the atmosphere significantly. In scientifically accepted theory, this leads to warmer years. Are there warmer years? Yes.
And with warmer years, oceans get warmer too, hence increased likelihood of more and stronger hurricanes.

I'd figure a connection between global warming and more/stronger hurricanes seems extremely likely. Is it a fact, I wouldn't dare say. The thing I always wonder though is how climate change sceptics dare say so much. At some point, they have to be the ones 100% certain that such a thing as man-made climate change, with all its consequences (not just hurricanes), does not exist. If they're wrong, the planet is in peril.

Now regarding earth's history, we sure can't say how hurricanes behaved thousands or millions of years ago. I don't think that's too relevant though. There are things mankind cannot change (like a new ice age) and things it can change.
In that sense, it makes no sense to blame Trump or his policies for current hurricanes, to me it makes some sense to blame a "bad" environmental policy [of course along with 1.000 other things Trump or no one can change] for an increased intensity or appearance of future hurricanes.

[*michaelsean*]

I don't think I know what "anthropogenic" means in my first language.

[hollodero]

(09-13-2018, 02:35 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I don't think I know what "anthropogenic" means in my first language.

Yeah well luckily the word in my first language is the same and I do have an online dictionary, where I learned I just have to add an -ic. 
Usually that makes names Yugoslavian though.

[fredtoast]

(09-12-2018, 11:56 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I don't think anyone is saying that. I think they're are laughing at the idiocy for blaming Trump.

No one blamed Trump.  All they are saying is that his policies will make it worse.

"Yet when it comes to extreme weather, Mr. Trump is complicit. He plays down humans’ role in increasing the risks, and he continues to dismantle efforts to address those risks."

Why do you think that claim is "idiotic"?  Seems 100% true to me.

[Dill]

(09-13-2018, 01:27 PM)michaelsean Wrote: To answer your last first, I don't say conservatives are right when the call Democrats socialists, just that Dino's meme would imply that they are correct.

When I think of socialism, I think of industry.  When Castro took over the cigar industry from seed to retail, that would be socialism.  I assume they did the same with rum, but I'm not certain.  

The military socializes cost.  Everything the government does socializes cost, but no I don't agree that makes it socialist.  

You can be certain that Fidel nationalized the rum industry, not to mention the sugar plantations upon which it depended. But they failed to get the special yeast that Bacardi uses. 

Sounds like we could have programs, then, which socialize the cost of healthcare, like a single payer system, and such programs would not be socialist or socialism in your book.

I agree that merely socializing costs does not make a government socialist. E.g., Louis XIV socialized the cost of his dynastic wars, but 17th century France was not a socialist state.  The question of socialism concerns ownership and control of "socialized" revenues.  But from that it still does not seem clear that a specific policy/program could not be deemed "socialist."

[Dill]

(09-13-2018, 02:47 PM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah well luckily the word in my first language is the same and I do have an online dictionary, where I learned I just have to add an -ic. 
Usually that makes names Yugoslavian though.

Not a name or even a common noun in this case--an adjective.

[Belsnickel]

(09-13-2018, 02:00 PM)PhilHos Wrote: So you have no problem blaming Trump for this upcoming hurricane? 

(09-13-2018, 02:50 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No one blamed Trump.  All they are saying is that his policies will make it worse.

"Yet when it comes to extreme weather, Mr. Trump is complicit. He plays down humans’ role in increasing the risks, and he continues to dismantle efforts to address those risks."

[*bfine32*]

(09-13-2018, 02:50 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No one blamed Trump.  All they are saying is that his policies will make it worse.

"Yet when it comes to extreme weather, Mr. Trump is complicit. He plays down humans’ role in increasing the risks, and he continues to dismantle efforts to address those risks."

Why do you think that claim is "idiotic"?  Seems 100% true to me.

Did you drive a vehicle today? If so, you are complicit, but there probably won't be a story about it.