Libs hate America! Wharrrhurrrrrderpgharrrbl!

/your blog sucks ass
//who the fark greenlit this shiat? It's bad and you should feel bad, admin.

Weaver95: hrm. how come my blog posts never get greenlit to the front page?

Man, that's sad.

Though you have a fair point; this blog makes arguments just as shiatty as yours, and assaults strawmen with just as much fervor.

This blog is only interesting if the definition of "interesting" now includes the phrase "mind-numbingly stupid".

Seriously... Submitting some random a-hole's blog entries to Fark should be grounds for being shot.

Ooo, "Neo-Socialism." That's good. Almost as scary-sounding as "Neo-Conservatism."

Just keep saying socialism over and over and over, thinking it will scare people. Eventually people will start to realize that the policies they actually like are the ones you've been calling socialist. We get the Overton Window moved for us!

ne2d
Ooo, "Neo-Socialism." That's good. Almost as scary-sounding as "Neo-Conservatism."

Except that the political philosophy of neoconservatism really exists and came to the fore under Bush. But yeah, other than that, it's close!

Racht
Eventually people will start to realize that the policies they actually like are the ones you've been calling socialist.

The Real Americans won't! Ignorance is a virtue.

Capitalism hasn't "failed". It's a wild success. The problem is that people were deluded into thinking that Capitalism was about the betterment of everyone, when instead it's about the betterment of those lucky enough to catch the breaks to become wealthy.

The myth that is failing is the idea that hard work is all one needs to succeed. Hard work makes you a good cog in the engine, but that's it.

As a whole, the Western nations are vastly wealthier than they were 100 years ago; the average person need not worry about starvation, nor are they on a subsistence wage. That said, the top 5% of the population, wealth-wise, holds a much greater proportion of the wealth than they did 100 years ago, as well. So while lower and middle class have made more money and become more comfortable, the rich have profited far, far more, exponentially so.

Which is great, if you're rich. If you're not, there's probably a better economic system for us to be using.

You see where this guy made his first mistake, is that he completely overshot the mark. If he would have said "neo-liberalism" instead of pulling out the big scary boogeyman of socialism, he probably could have reeled a few misguided moderate people into his view a little better. That's what they always do, though. We called their pot black, they're not just gonna call our kettle 'black' back, they have to go and call it 'so black that light bends' which, frankly, is just silly because then how would you see the kettle to buy it in the first place?

well shiat, that train of thought got sort of derailed at the end but I stand by it.

Thorak
The myth that is failing is the idea that hard work is all one needs to succeed. Hard work makes you a good cog in the engine, but that's it.

More Americans Falling For 'Get Rich Slowly Over A Lifetime Of Hard Work' Schemes (new window)

Thorak: As a whole, the Western nations are vastly wealthier than they were 100 years ago; the average person need not worry about starvation, nor are they on a subsistence wage. That said, the top 5% of the population, wealth-wise, holds a much greater proportion of the wealth than they did 100 years ago, as well. So while lower and middle class have made more money and become more comfortable, the rich have profited far, far more, exponentially so.

Classic example of class envy. You admit that the system has produced a better and more comfortable society for everyone, but only measure its success or failure based on the fact that some did better than others.

vygramul: • Believing in (and enjoying) America - no. in fact it is "conservatives" who are actively cheering for the country to fail right now.

Pretty much came here to say this. The first three points aren't terribly unfair, but the fourth point starts off ok but confuses liberalism with Chomsky.

I read that as "Rush says he wants Obama to fail, thus putting party over country." For better or worse, he's been the unofficial spokes-fatty of the GOP as of late.

Cataholic: Classic example of class envy. You admit that the system has produced a better and more comfortable society for everyone, but only measure its success or failure based on the fact that some did better than others.

There's absolutely zero evidence that the "system" produced a better and more comfortable society for everyone. We're on a big upturn, economically and technologically, and that's what has led to the vast increase in wealth more than any specific system. The current situation has far more to do with the fact that the US wasn't ravaged, physically as well as economically, in WWII whereas most other first world nations were.

Also, I never said or suggested that capitalism was "bad". But it does survive in large part through falsehoods like the "hard work to achieve success" bit. And capitalism not being as terrible as some other systems, like communism, does not in any way suggest that it is some perfect utopian system that could not possibly be bettered.

mauricecano: And you couldn't use a better paint program to make your chart. These colors and graphics are pretty poor. Pastels are soo 1990's.

But good attempt to makeup data to try and support the president, he needs people who truly believe that he is governing perfectly in the middle. Lets not mind the current growth of government size, power, deficits, etc.

Can't tell if this is snark or not but the graph, itself, is from politicalcompass.org (Link) . I'd complain to them about the colors and/or data presented on the graph.

FTFA: A belief in the concept that capitalism has failed, but can be resuscitated by a new partnership between government and business.

What a silly thing to open your argument with. Capitalism hasn't failed, because it has never been tried. What we call "capitalism" in America has ALWAYS been a partnership between government and business. The Founding Fathers were Capitalists, and built a government that would aid them in staying rich and getting richer.

The Conservative Wahoo is off his Wazoo.

Um... the government always has and always will compete with private industry. Sometimes government is not the ideal goods and service provider, but sometimes it is.

The problem with setting up a thought experiment with (insert political philosophy here) vs. (other political philosophy here) is that it's doomed to failure. No pure form of government works. It can't. That's why the most successful nations on earth employ a mixture of various systems and philosophies to ensure the citizenry can do what it has to do, make the country a place where people can live their lives in relative happiness. Capitalism fails when it's used as a cure all. So does Socialism. You just need to pick the right tool for the job.

Thorak: There's absolutely zero evidence that the "system" produced a better and more comfortable society for everyone. We're on a big upturn, economically and technologically, and that's what has led to the vast increase in wealth more than any specific system. The current situation has far more to do with the fact that the US wasn't ravaged, physically as well as economically, in WWII whereas most other first world nations were.

Henry Ford managed to find investors so he could start a car company. It took three tries (and the second became Cadillac) but what you see today in the auto industry is the result. Almost everything we have that has made us more productive and comfortable has a similar story. Capital is smart, apolitical and quickly migrates to things that work and things people want.

Thorak: There's absolutely zero evidence that the "system" produced a better and more comfortable society for everyone. We're on a big upturn, economically and technologically, and that's what has led to the vast increase in wealth more than any specific system. The current situation has far more to do with the fact that the US wasn't ravaged, physically as well as economically, in WWII whereas most other first world nations were.

Much of the economic rewards we reaped in the 20th also have to do with the massive amounts of spending in infrastructure and research through government grant programs and lending.

Our highway system for instance, or hell even the intertubes we type on.

Kome
Um... the government always has and always will compete with private industry. Sometimes government is not the ideal goods and service provider, but sometimes it is.

Don't confuse the poor Republicans. If it's not black or white, they get confused and must pretend that it is.

and believing in (and enjoying) America's decline

...says the group of people whose fingers and toes are crossed in hopes of a double dip recession.