Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

The Marjorie Taylor Greene Thread


Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, rockaction said:

That's really a linguistic concern you're addressing. He's talking about the practicality and definitional soundness of it. It's like anarcho-communists or anarcho-socialists. Just a contradictory concept.

It really isn't.  Sanders has expressed a set of beliefs.  He calls that group of beliefs Democratic Socialism.  As an espouser of those beliefs, he refers to himself as a Democratic Socialist.  He exists and he believes those things.  The end.

If one wishes to make the argument that his beliefs are stupid, contradictory, or silly, go ahead.  Don't say "Democratic Socialists" don't exist.  It's a stupid argument and intended to inflame rather than debate.

Edited by Rich Conway
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Rich Conway said:

It really isn't.  Sanders has expressed a set of beliefs.  He calls that group of beliefs Democratic Socialism.  As an espouser of those beliefs, he refers to himself as a Democratic Socialist.  He exists and he believes those things.  The end.

Again that's a linguistic concern. It does not address the truth value of the statement. Like "substantive due process" being called "green pastel redness," to cite a famous example of a contradictory definitional category being taken the piss out of. It's nonsense, democratic socialism. It's never been democratic at all in practice.

  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To say that because socialism believes in one thing...that it is impossible for Democratic Socialism to exist because of something in socialism...is an odd thought to me.  The whole point of referring to it as Democratic Socialism...is to differentiate from the things between a democracy and socialism that don't mesh, and remove them  (like the State controlling means of production...being Democratic Socialist would mean, the people control it).

It does not mean it can't mesh...it does not mean it does not exist.  It means it changes what is socialist...it takes some from each system.  Its not that difficult of a concept to see that it does exist.  And no...Bernie is not just some wannabe communist trying to get power to secretly turn us that way (as some yes have inferred).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the example.

Feb 11, 2016 — In 1980, John Hart Ely pronounced substantive due process “a contradiction in terms—sort of like 'green pastel redness.'” IOW, the contradictory terms make the statement nonsensical. That's what democratic socialism does. That's what Blade Runner is saying. I happen to agree with him on that point.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, rockaction said:

Again that's a linguistic concern. It does not address the truth value of the statement. Like "substantive due process" being called "green pastel redness," to cite a famous example of a contradictory definitional category being taken the piss out of. It's nonsense, democratic socialism. It's never been democratic at all in practice.

You responded before my edit.

Regardless, I'm curious about the bolded.  Can you point to an instance of Democratic Socialism governance that wasn't democratic in practice?  Are you suggesting the Scandinavian countries, frequently held up as examples of governance closest to the set of beliefs that Sanders espouses, aren't democratic in practice?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, sho nuff said:

To say that because socialism believes in one thing...that it is impossible for Democratic Socialism to exist because of something in socialism...is an odd thought to me.  The whole point of referring to it as Democratic Socialism...is to differentiate from the things between a democracy and socialism that don't mesh, and remove them  (like the State controlling means of production...being Democratic Socialist would mean, the people control it).

It does not mean it can't mesh...it does not mean it does not exist.  It means it changes what is socialist...it takes some from each system.  Its not that difficult of a concept to see that it does exist.  And no...Bernie is not just some wannabe communist trying to get power to secretly turn us that way (as some yes have inferred).

It absolutely means democracy and socialism cannot exist together. That's his point. And history has shown us that it never does. Socialist-leaning reforms to democratic policies, yes. But there is no "democratic socialism."

This is funny because six years ago back in 2015 I was busy saying that Sanders was indeed a democratic socialist and not a social democrat, which is what people were insisting back then. Now that he's been real clear about it, it is indeed the system he espouses.

This is certainly a change. Glad I won that argument. Too bad I don't win any internet dollars for winning it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Rich Conway said:

You responded before my edit.

Regardless, I'm curious about the bolded.  Can you point to an instance of Democratic Socialism governance that wasn't democratic in practice?  Are you suggesting the Scandinavian countries, frequently held up as examples of governance closest to the set of beliefs that Sanders espouses, aren't democratic in practice?

They're social democracies. There's a huge difference between social democracies and democratic socialism. I've been over this so many times in the PSF it's like it never ends. Bernie is a democratic socialist. He writes for socialist academic journals. He knows the difference between the two systems you mention. Him choosing the word order is important because in socialism, as stated ad nasuem, you have state control of production, prices, wages. In social democracies, markets take care of that. Big difference. Huge honking difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, rockaction said:

It absolutely means democracy and socialism cannot exist together. That's his point. And history has shown us that it never does. Socialist-leaning reforms to democratic policies, yes. But there is no "democratic socialism."

This is funny because six years ago back in 2015 I was busy saying that Sanders was indeed a democratic socialist and not a social democrat, which is what people were insisting back then. Now that he's been real clear about it, it is indeed the system he espouses.

This is certainly a change. Glad I won that argument. Too bad I don't win any internet dollars for winning it.

History has shown us that right now it is happening in some european counties...that has been pointed out.  Hell it already happens some here.

We take some parts of it in our current form of government.

Sanders could call it Ranch Dressing vs. Democratic Socialism...would that change his philosophy on government?  Or would it just change the window dressing we are now arguing about?

Win an argument...umm...ok...congrats?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Rich Conway said:

The idea that Democratic Socialists don't exist is beyond stupid.

Any group of people can get together, write down a collection of beliefs, and then slap a name on them.  For example, my new political brand/label believes in the following:

- Southern Rock is a better form of music than Disco
- Texas style BBQ is better than Carolina style
- Stick shift is better than automatic

Due to the founders of this party being located in the northern part of the country, we will call our party the Southern Northerners.  This party exists.  Members of the party exist.  It is beyond stupid to claim there's no such thing as Southern Northerners simply because you disagree with the beliefs espoused or because the name we have chosen is an oxymoron.

I'm forming a Northern Southerners party and need help settling which accent to use.  Fargo or Charlestown? I suppose the ideal would be Fargo for day to day interactions, but if robbing a bank or discussing politics, full on Charlestown. 

  • Like 1
  • Laughing 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Rich Conway said:

If Sanders et.al. preached the exact same policies but called themselves "Plaid Pokemonists" would you argue that Plaid Pokemonism doesn't exist?  I'm saying the label itself is irrelevant.

I think that we have to say that "democratic" and "socialist" have meaning before conjoined, and whether that conjoining can happen depends on the truth value of the statement, "one can be a democrat and a socialist." That's why we're getting hung up here. If you said "one can be plaid and an adherent of Pokemon" we'd have to assess whether the two terms were contradictory in nature, just like we're trying to assess whether one can be a "democrat" and a "socialist" for this discussion. You're simply conjoining names, I'm taking a truth value or trying to discern a truth table from those names' meaning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, rockaction said:

I think that we have to say that "democratic" and "socialist" have meaning before conjoined, and whether that conjoining can happen depends on the truth value of the statement, "one can be a democrat and a socialist." That's why we're getting hung up here. If you said "one can be plaid and an adherent of Pokemon" we'd have to assess whether the two terms were contradictory in nature, just like we're trying to assess whether one can be a "democrat" and a "socialist" for this discussion. You're simply conjoining names, I'm taking a truth value or trying to discern a truth table from those names' meaning.

The bolded is exactly the point.  Democratic Socialism is not "I'm a Democrat and I'm a Socialist".  Democratic Socialism is the set of beliefs espoused by those who call themselves Democratic Socialists, and those beliefs need not be in alignment with socialism at all.  If you want to argue that two particular beliefs espoused by Sanders et.al. are incompatible with each other, have at it, but pick out the two beliefs in question rather than the label they have chosen.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Rich Conway said:

The bolded is exactly the point.  Democratic Socialism is not "I'm a Democrat and I'm a Socialist".  Democratic Socialism is the set of beliefs espoused by those who call themselves Democratic Socialists, and those beliefs need not be in alignment with socialism at all.  If you want to argue that two particular beliefs espoused by Sanders et.al. are incompatible with each other, have at it, but pick out the two beliefs in question rather than the label they have chosen.

Their label carries the meaning of the words with it. It's exactly what I pointed out before with "substantive due process" and "green pastel redness." The combination of words with specific meaning renders them incompatible as a theory from the beginning. As you guys around here are fond of saying, words mean things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Mister CIA said:

I'm forming a Northern Southerners party and need help settling which accent to use.  Fargo or Charlestown? I suppose the ideal would be Fargo for day to day interactions, but if robbing a bank or discussing politics, full on Charlestown. 

You Northern Southerners are the antithesis of everything that is decent in the world.  Down is up, black is white, left is right!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, rockaction said:

Their label carries the meaning of the words with it. It's exactly what I pointed out before with "substantive due process" and "green pastel redness." The combination of words with specific meaning renders them incompatible as a theory from the beginning. As you guys around here are fond of saying, words mean things.

The issue here is that you're thinking they have chosen the label Xist Yers because they believe all tenets of X and all tenets of Y.  That isn't the case.

They have chosen the label Xist Yers because they believe some tenets of X and some tenets of Y.  I don't think you can convincingly make the case that each tenet of X is, separately, incompatible with each tenet of Y, which is what would be required in order to say categorically that "some tenets of X" cannot coexist with "some tenets of Y".

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, rockaction said:

They're social democracies. There's a huge difference between social democracies and democratic socialism. I've been over this so many times in the PSF it's like it never ends. Bernie is a democratic socialist. He writes for socialist academic journals. He knows the difference between the two systems you mention. Him choosing the word order is important because in socialism, as stated ad nasuem, you have state control of production, prices, wages. In social democracies, markets take care of that. Big difference. Huge honking difference.

Splitter!

  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Rich Conway said:

The issue here is that you're thinking they have chosen the label Xist Yers because they believe all tenets of X and all tenets of Y.  That isn't the case.

They have chosen the label Xist Yers because they believe some tenets of X and some tenets of Y.  I don't think you can convincingly make the case that each tenet of X is, separately, incompatible with each tenet of Y, which is what would be required in order to say categorically that "some tenets of X" cannot coexist with "some tenets of Y".

Mm. Fair enough. Now you're speaking my language (in a way I can understand). I'd probably say that in casual usage is not that it's "some and some" but rather "a subset of." Democratic = X. Socialism = Y. X is a subset of Y, where Y is the predominant descriptor. X simply refines Y.

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, DaVinci said:

I have never been a Monty Python aficionado (nor even been a casual watcher of their movies) but every time I see a clip of theirs and it gets semi-political, it's brilliant.

Edited by rockaction
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here’s the important part: whatever they call themselves, neither Bernie Sanders nor AOC are in favor of an end to our capitalist, free market economy; they just want much heavier government involvement. They are not Communists or in favor of a Communist dictatorship. Though they call themselves Democratic Socialists, they are actually quite close to the Social Democratic Party that has been such an important part of European history, which is somewhat to the left of our traditional Democratic Party. 
@BladeRunner and many other conservatives seem to delight in arguing that there really is no difference between an AOC and a Communist who is going to bring about a dictatorship and genocide. As with liberals who like to argue that certain conservative figures are actually fascists, it should be taken with a grain of salt. It’s a fabrication. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyhow back to Marjorie Taylor Greene: A day after Kevin McCarthy told us how apologetic she is and how she has learned to change her ways, she called the media and all Democrats morons and acted contemptuous of McCarthy as well. 
Why does this all seem so familiar? 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, timschochet said:

Anyhow back to Marjorie Taylor Greene: A day after Kevin McCarthy told us how apologetic she is and how she has learned to change her ways, she called the media and all Democrats morons and acted contemptuous of McCarthy as well. 
Why does this all seem so familiar? 

Because she is following the pattern set by another?

  • Thinking 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Z Machine said:

You should ask François Hollande and other people in European socialist parties whether one can be a democrat and a socialist at the same time. 

My hunch is they'll say, yes. 

Fantastic!  When you moving?  ;)

Edited by BladeRunner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, timschochet said:

Anyhow back to Marjorie Taylor Greene: A day after Kevin McCarthy told us how apologetic she is and how she has learned to change her ways, she called the media and all Democrats morons and acted contemptuous of McCarthy as well. 
Why does this all seem so familiar? 

I mean, let's get real.  She's not necessarily wrong on the bolded.   😜

Edited by BladeRunner
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Rich Conway said:

You Northern Southerners are the antithesis of everything that is decent in the world.  Down is up, black is white, left is right!

“Everything you know is wrong,

Black is white, up is down, and short is long,

And everything you thought was just so
Important doesn't matter

Everything you know is wrong
Just forget the words and sing along
All you need to understand is
Everything you know is wrong!”

-Weird Al Yankovic

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Rich Conway said:

The idea that Democratic Socialists don't exist is beyond stupid.

Any group of people can get together, write down a collection of beliefs, and then slap a name on them.  For example, my new political brand/label believes in the following:

- Southern Rock is a better form of music than Disco
- Texas style BBQ is better than Carolina style
- Stick shift is better than automatic

Due to the founders of this party being located in the northern part of the country, we will call our party the Southern Northerners.  This party exists.  Members of the party exist.  It is beyond stupid to claim there's no such thing as Southern Northerners simply because you disagree with the beliefs espoused or because the name we have chosen is an oxymoron.

You put it much more eloquently than I could.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Kal El said:

“Everything you know is wrong,

Black is white, up is down, and short is long,

And everything you thought was just so
Important doesn't matter

Everything you know is wrong
Just forget the words and sing along
All you need to understand is
Everything you know is wrong!”

-Weird Al Yankovic

Now everything’s a little upside down
As a matter of fact, the wheels have stopped
What’s good is bad, what’s bad is good
You’ll find out when you reach the top
You’re on the bottom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, timschochet said:

I just don’t think calling the media or Democrats morons is funny. It’s that whole Trump sense of humor thing, I don’t get it. 

It's clear from our interactions that you have a real issue with me so OF COURSE you're going to get all bent out of shape over a joke simply because it came from me.

It's a joke so you can relax.  Not everything is an outrage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, BladeRunner said:

It's clear from our interactions that you have a real issue with me so OF COURSE you're going to get all bent out of shape over a joke simply because it came from me.

It's a joke so you can relax.  Not everything is an outrage.

I don’t have a real issue with you. I disagree with you about 90% of the time, but that’s not an issue. 
I didn’t get bent out of shape because that “joke” came from YOU; I reacted the way I did because I found it distasteful. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, timschochet said:

Anyhow back to Marjorie Taylor Greene: A day after Kevin McCarthy told us how apologetic she is and how she has learned to change her ways, she called the media and all Democrats morons and acted contemptuous of McCarthy as well. 
Why does this all seem so 

Joke didn't come out right on re-read.

Edited by The Z Machine
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, timschochet said:
9 hours ago, BladeRunner said:

I mean, let's get real.  She's not necessarily wrong on the bolded.   😜

She’s wrong and this sort of joke isn’t funny. 

Oh come on, are you sure it's not funny when the same joke is said about "all Republicans"? Granted, it's risky to assume that the moderators will think it's funny, but I'm sure that a suspension could easily be avoided by simply saying "Lighten up, Francis" -- because, you know, insults never make things worse, right?

Edited by Sea Duck
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Rich Conway said:

Just wait until the election!  Southern Northerners forever!

Wait, which one was I, again?

Grew up in WI...live in TN.

Am I a northern southerner?  Or a southern northerner?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Mister CIA said:

I'm forming a Northern Southerners party and need help settling which accent to use.  Fargo or Charlestown? I suppose the ideal would be Fargo for day to day interactions, but if robbing a bank or discussing politics, full on Charlestown. 

This reminds me of a day many years ago when my buddies and I were hanging out and I suggested we form a new religion and call ourselves "Northern Rastafarians" so we could argue smoking pot was freedom of religion. Yes I was high at the time.

  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Someone told me once that North Florida University is south of Central Florida University but I don’t know if that’s true. 

UNF? No, it's not. But there is a part of the Virginia that is west of West Virginia. And Detroit, for that matter.

Edited by Apple Jack
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Someone told me once that North Florida University is south of Central Florida University but I don’t know if that’s true. 

Not even close to true. Univ of North FL is in Jacksonville. Central FL is in Orlando

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, timschochet said:

I just don’t think calling the media or Democrats morons is funny. It’s that whole Trump sense of humor thing, I don’t get it. 

Neither did the rest of the USA. By 7 million votes. Now that is funny.

  • Like 3
  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, timschochet said:

I don’t have a real issue with you. I disagree with you about 90% of the time, but that’s not an issue. 
I didn’t get bent out of shape because that “joke” came from YOU; I reacted the way I did because I found it distasteful. 

And not at all funny.  I’m not sure what type of sense of humour would find that funny. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow.  Sure area bunch of sensitive people in here. 

Remember the last 2 years when you guys made fun of Trump and his supporters (heck, still do) and you cracked jokes at their expense all the time?  Yeah, me too.  You were all smiles and laughter then.  Now that you guys are in the crosshairs suddenly its not funny.

If only there was a term to describe that type of behavior.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BladeRunner said:

Wow.  Sure area bunch of sensitive people in here. 

Remember the last 2 years when you guys made fun of Trump and his supporters (heck, still do) and you cracked jokes at their expense all the time?  Yeah, me too.  You were all smiles and laughter then.  Now that you guys are in the crosshairs suddenly its not funny.

If only there was a term to describe that type of behavior.

I don't think there was ever a time when "all [members of a specific political party] are morons" was an acceptable phrase around here. Perhaps the moderators have now relaxed their standards, or simply made exceptions.

Edited by Sea Duck
McNeil
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Sea Duck said:

I don't think there was ever a time when "all [members of a specific political party] are morons" was an acceptable phrase around here. Perhaps the moderators have now relaxed their standards, or simply made exceptions.

Was there ever a time in here where people could get a joke and not get all butt hurt over it?

My goodness you guys are sensitive. I even put a joke emoji after the sentence and you still got bent out of shape.

I mean, it's pretty clear why you guys are acting this way.  Had anyone else said it besides me you would be all smiles and laughter.

Maybe we should petition Joe for an even safer space for you guys?  The reaction in here is just absurd.

Edited by BladeRunner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BladeRunner said:

Was there ever a time in here where people could get a joke and not get all butt hurt over it?

My goodness you guys are sensitive. I even put a joke emoji after the sentence and you still got bent out of shape.

I mean, it's pretty clear why you guys are acting this way.  Had anyone else said it besides me you would be all smiles and laughter.

Maybe we should petition Joe for an even safer space for you guys?  The reaction in here is just absurd.

Your reaction is just absurd. You made a dumb, unfunny attempt at humor. That happens. But now you’ve spent 4 posts whining about how nobody laughed with you. You accused me of not liking you personally, you accused the forum of being pro-liberal, you act like a victim. 
It wasn’t funny. Calling people morons isn’t funny. It has nothing to do with what political side you’re on. It’s stupid. It will always be stupid. You’re not a stupid guy so why not chalk it up to a dumb moment and move on? 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Love 1
  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
  • Create New...