I
I mean
did you even
the video literally has Bernie saying on tape that Comey should resign
also what the forget are you talking about "circumstances have changed", Bernie wanted Comey out, then Annoying Orange fires Comey and he flips his position
how you extrapolate "everything's different now so my guy's inconsistency is validated!!!1!!11!!!!" from that is beyond me but frankly it's loving annoying
again, i'm saying he did not write the tweet yelling at Annoying Orange for firing comey, bernie has only said that first part himself. the circumstances have changed, though, because nobody would say anything if he was fired with nothing going on, but the fact of the matter is he waited until comey started investigating him to fire him.
except they don't, because you get healthcare for yourself and not for somebody else
that is the fundamental idea behind healthcare
it's YOUR idea of what healthcare should be, not everyone's gonna agree with that.
it's less they saw an economic opportunity and more the looming threat of fascism from one empire and that we got attacked by another fascistic empire at the same time
but please continue with your warped sense of history
the overwhelming majority of americans remained adamantly against entering world war 2, but were completely fine with profiting off of it until we were attacked by japan.
keep in mind also that ww2 was far from the only time we've done something like this.
would you rather have the opposite where everyone is jobless, broke, and literally stealing food and silverware from restaurants that didn't shut down to get by?
...no? i want workers to benefit directly from the wealth they themselves create, rather than the CEOs / executives taking it all.
I can't read pure socialist jargon but I think what you're trying to say is that the people who worked during wartime didn't really want to do it and were forced, and that they didn't get a lot for it, all of which is patently false
that's not what i said, but it doesn't surprise me that you would dismiss it as jargon in order to simplify it and ignore it.
"didn't get a lot for it" - the benefits they reaped literally created the middle class as we know it today
ah yes, the great american middle class. totally not getting
actively forgeted over by the top 1% of income earners or anything like that.
nobody would have enough resources to innovate because the people with good ideas would get the same amount of resources as the people with bad ideas, as per the definition of socialism
and if you want to take it one step further, people wouldn't work as hard to realize these ideas, because regardless of what they do they'd still get everything the dedicated person does, as per the definition of socialism
i think you're operating on a fundamentally flawed view of how this would work. The point of socialism is that everybody gets adequate resources, resources that would be proportionally allocated depending on the field you work in. scientists would receive the resources necessary to innovate, but it would be the resources that they need. there wouldn't be any janitors being given scientific equipment, because it would be given to the scientists. if that janitor went to college and became a scientist, though, he would then have access to these resources along with every other scientist.
because rich people don't work hard to get their wealth and power, they all just get it from their parents
who
worked hard to get their wealth and
and
ooh look free stuff
not even sure what you're saying here tbh
also, please don't say stuff will "statistically happen" without providing statistics
where do you think you are
NeoGAF
why would i need to provide statistics for that? let me illustrate what im trying to tell you here with an example:
a group is tasked with finding a number between 1 and 100. 10 people are selected, and in one instance all 10 people are placed in separate rooms and, though they ware working towards the same goal, they each have a task that has a 1/100 of being completed. now imagine all 10 of those people are allowed to be in the same room and guess all at once. this makes the likelihood of them guessing the correct number 1/10, as opposed to 1/100.
you're talking about reverse engineering as though it's a chore, meanwhile you get paid a whole lot to do it and you get to figure out how things work
do you know how popular the show "How It's Made" is and other stuff like that?
I've been to four engineering camps and I'm going to be counseling at a fifth one, and every single time reverse engineering is brought up it's been a smash hit
every single time
doesn't matter how "fun" reverse engineering is, it literally wouldn't be necessary (and you wouldnt have to pay people to do it) if the innovative knowledge was made public from the get-go.
you also fail to explain how companies can control the market with unreleased products when they don't release them, which every single company that wants to make bank will do with all of their technology eventually
otherwise it will get discovered via industrial espionage, which yes is illegal sometimes, but that's only sometimes
to give a recent and relatively simple example, consider Battlefield 1. people liked the idea of a WW1 game, so it made a lot of money. call of duty, who had been falling behind in sales due to them chasing the market trend of futuristic shooters, then started work on call of duty WW2, because they saw how well BF1 sold. Battlefield 1's release shifted the video game shooter market to be more profitable for world war shooters. now as for the unreleased part of it, battlefield 1 could have been released at any time. while it is still unreleased, they have the power to, at any given moment, change the market. maybe i wasn't specific enough, though. i kinda meant that it's moreso the controlled release of products at the time it is most advantageous to the company, and that waiting to release them whenever they want gives them a degree of control.
if it works don't try to fix it
and what exactly is your definition of a "working" economy? you would certainly have a tough time explaining how well our economy works to the 50 million americans below the poverty line, people who have been completely forgeted over by this economy. the economy certainly didn't "work" in their favor, did it?
literally the first comment on that socialist blog that you linked:
oops
there's a massive difference in what can be considered a "mixed economy" from both sides. america is considered a "mixed economy" despite not even guaranteeing healthcare to its citizens, and countries like sweden are, according to you, considered a "mixed economy" despite being noticeably more socialist.
who would these "CEOs" make the products for?
uh.. society? these CEOs are also apart of this society, so when they help society it helps them in return
who would craft them, or mass produce them?
the workers? people need some kind of job while they're receiving a higher education, and that's not to mention all the people who would rather just work as a laborer rather than go to college.
A 90% tax rate is ok
fake newsanyways how was your day guys
Poll