Did anyone watch Jon Stewart on Chris Wallace?

[n_huffhines]

Depends entirely on the purpose of the co-op.

This conversation is funny because I currently am in a co-op within my office. We even jokingly call it our co-op. I work in SEO, but we have a call floor and they use fake money as incentives for customer service. The fake money is used to buy stuff from HR. They have a Costco $25 gift card. So me and 2 other guys colluded to pool the stobucks (as they are called) that we can get our hands on. Now we've got brownies, red vines, frozen burritos, etc. coming out of our ears.

I'm in it for me.

 

[volinbham]

The credit union, as an institution, is collectively owned by its member/owners. Similarly, the co-op's resources being used for the co-op's benefit, be it shared land or collectively bought instruments, are collectively owned by its members.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

But the collective "ownership" doesn't negate the individual ownership of the capital in the credit union.

As a credit union member all I own is 1) the money I put in as deposits and 2) rights to a share of dividends. I don't have any claim to other's deposits and the credit union (the entity itself) doesn't own the capital.

On the farm deal it entirely depends on who owns what. If the land is owned by all members then yes that is socialism. If we simply co-op but retain our individual land ownership while cooperating on what to grow than it is not socialism.

 

[volinbham]

You are leaving out the government component.

The argument as to entitlements, or Medicare, or Medicaid, farm subsidies, or the military, or public roads is that the government collects tax dollars and redistributes them for the greater good. The pooling of resources is compelled, as is their redistribution.

An agreement in private enterprise is done for the mutual benefit of the two companies, voluntarily.

So the answer to your questions is no.

On the flip side, to further illustrate the point, the aspects of the Obama health care plan that Bachmann says are socialist are identical in all relevant respects to farm subsidies, to wit, collection of mandatory revenues, involuntarily, and then redistribution of those revenues to further society-wide goals.

In fact, a compelling argument can be made that farm subsidies are, by definition, far more socialist than the health care plan because there are multiple options available to you on how to pay in for your share of the revenue whereas in the case of farm subsidies it taken from general revenue and no one has a choice on how to participate on that end of the equation.

Huh? Did you even read the back and forth between dreVol and I? The joint venture was a response to his claim that pooling of resources is socialism. There was no government and no talk of Obamacare in the example. Sorry LG but I really didn't understand why you quoted my comment and added these comments.

 

[milohimself]

But the collective "ownership" doesn't negate the individual ownership of the capital in the credit union.

As a credit union member all I own is 1) the money I put in as deposits and 2) rights to a share of dividends. I don't have any claim to other's deposits and the credit union (the entity itself) doesn't own the capital.

On the farm deal it entirely depends on who owns what. If the land is owned by all members then yes that is socialism. If we simply co-op but retain our individual land ownership while cooperating on what to grow than it is not socialism.

Correct.

 

[sjt18]

There is no "means of production" for payment.

Yes there is. I deal with it on multiple levels every single day.

When people talk socialized medicine, they are talking about a system in which the doctor's actual take home check comes from the province or state in which they live.

I see so when mixing colors you try to distinguish between "bluish-yellow" and green, right?

I guess you could more technically call the system fascist but that wouldn't win you any friends. In either event, Canada has a system in which the means of production, delivery, and payment are completely controlled if not owned by gov't. If gov't owns all the money in the system then you have to really "strain" on the definitions to deny that it is a socialist system.

 

[KiffinKiller]

Yes there is. I deal with it on multiple levels every single day.

I see so when mixing colors you try to distinguish between "bluish-yellow" and green, right?

I guess you could more technically call the system fascist but that wouldn't win you any friends. In either event, Canada has a system in which the means of production, delivery, and payment are completely controlled if not owned by gov't. If gov't owns all the money in the system then you have to really "strain" on the definitions to deny that it is a socialist system.

Did you just call Canada fascist? lulz

 

[milohimself]

By your definition, anything paid for by the distribution of tax revenue is socialist.

You're changing the definition of the word to fit your world view. It's plain false.

 

[milohimself]

Yes there is. I deal with it on multiple levels every single day.

I see so when mixing colors you try to distinguish between "bluish-yellow" and green, right?

I guess you could more technically call the system fascist but that wouldn't win you any friends. In either event, Canada has a system in which the means of production, delivery, and payment are completely controlled if not owned by gov't. If gov't owns all the money in the system then you have to really "strain" on the definitions to deny that it is a socialist system.

Payment is a transfer of money, goods or services from one party to another. It is an action. There are no means of production for an action.

I'd suggest you at least look up fascism on Wikipedia before bringing it up. I will wait for you to explain how Canada's system can be construed as fascist as you said that you could.

Your last bit is categorically false. The means of production and delivery are done entirely by private parties in Canada. The government has no authority to tell people which doctor they would like to see. The government has no authority to tell doctors what they can practice and where they can practice.

Referring to Canadian health care or the ACA as socialist systems displays a lack of fundamental understanding of various forms of health care administration. I'll be happy to debate the pros and cons with you once you're willing to make an effort to actually learn about the subject in question.

 

[volinbham]

Single payer is more socialist than individual buyer. It isn't socialism. The socialistic aspect (and this applies to all government programs that are direct transfers) is that individual capital is confiscated and redistributed. The loss of private ownership is in earnings which are partially owned by the collective for redistribution.

Actually, it is more communistic than socialistic but that's an even stronger word.

Socialism? No. Socialistic aspects via confiscation and redistribution of private capital? Yes.

It is wrong to call Canada socialized medicine if the intent is to claim it is socialism. It is correct to say their system is more socialistic than ours.

 

[KiffinKiller]

Single payer is more socialist than individual buyer. It isn't socialism. The socialistic aspect (and this applies to all government programs that are direct transfers) is that individual capital is confiscated and redistributed. The loss of private ownership is in earnings which are partially owned by the collective for redistribution.

Actually, it is more communistic than socialistic but that's an even stronger word.

Socialism? No. Socialistic aspects via confiscation and redistribution of private capital? Yes.

It is wrong to call Canada socialized medicine if the intent is to claim it is socialism. It is correct to say their system is more socialistic than ours.

Clear and concise. Well done.

 

[milohimself]

Bringing the facts, again.

 

[CardassianVol]

Watch Comedy Central for the news, FNC and MSNBC for the laughs.

Cable news is a mental wasteland where people can always find a channel that shows you how right you are and how wrong those damn liberals/conservatives are. Always. It is a joke.

 

[droski]

You really think that Stewart or Maher pretends to be objective? Please. They wear it on their sleeves..

bs. the whole "i'm just a comedian" ploy is trying to put on the facade of objectivity. i wish he would come out and admit his agenda rather than hide behind it.

 

[milohimself]

bs. the whole "i'm just a comedian" ploy is trying to put on the facade of objectivity. i wish he would come out and admit his agenda rather than hide behind it.

I take it you didn't buy what he was using to dance circles around Chris Wallace with (if you watched the interview)?

 

[MG1968]

I take it you didn't buy what he was using to dance circles around Chris Wallace with (if you watched the interview)?

"dance circles around" in this case means "evade", right? Stewart's obviously a smart guy, but anybody who tries to make the claim that the NYT isn't liberal (it just reports on the sensational) is either lying or they're so far to the left themselves that outlets like the NYT and CNN seem centrist by comparison.

 

[emainvol]

"dance circles around" in this case means "evade", right? Stewart's obviously a smart guy, but anybody who tries to make the claim that the NYT isn't liberal (it just reports on the sensational) is either lying or they're so far to the left themselves that outlets like the NYT and CNN seem centrist by comparison.

I don't think he said it wasn't liberal, I think it was that it wasn't actively forcing some liberal agenda.

 

[MG1968]

I don't think he said it wasn't liberal, I think it was that it wasn't actively forcing some liberal agenda.

perhaps not, but he claimed that FNC was trying to force a conservative agenda, especially when he hinted that Wallace receives RNC talking points.

 

[volinbham]

In the end, Fox is serving an audience like Stewart or the NYTimes. Sure ideology floats in but just as Stewart claims to be a comedian first, Fox and the NYTimes are news with a target first.

Ratings are the agenda.

 

[IPorange]

bs. the whole "i'm just a comedian" ploy is trying to put on the facade of objectivity. i wish he would come out and admit his agenda rather than hide behind it.

As was said in the interview, there is a difference between "I am just a comedian" and "I am a comedian." The latter is what they say.

 

[milohimself]

Ratings are, and in the event I'm in a mood to watch cable news, I try and give FNC at least 10-15 minutes every time. In general I find CNN to be center or slightly left of center, but my main complaint with them is that their overall programming quality sucks. Obvious exception for things like Spitzer's show. The liberal activist stuff you guys I'm sure have been noticing about MSNBC in recent years is a cheap rip-off of the same crap I've also noticed from FNC for years. FNC programming in general carries a very heightened sense of anger, and of conservative political activism. In a sense there's an extra component to FNC that's not present in CNN or the New York Times. People within all three organizations carry their own biases, but there are widely varying degrees of pro activeness.

Again, I did gain a measure of respect for Wallace for going as close as he was allowed to in saying Fox operates from a pro-conservative agenda.

Again, I don't prefer MSNBC or NYT, and I understand that most people out there would prefer the visual editorial style of Fox News which is what they bring.

 

[bleedorange1983]

bs. the whole "i'm just a comedian" ploy is trying to put on the facade of objectivity. i wish he would come out and admit his agenda rather than hide behind it.

I agree, he has an obvious agenda. Anyone that has seen his show once is aware of it.

 

[milohimself]

You're confusing agenda for bias, and he admitted it on that interview. Did either of you watch it?
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[bleedorange1983]

You're confusing agenda for bias, and he admitted it on that interview. Did either of you watch it?
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Yes I watched it. Where is the line between agenda and bias? Whether you are supporting or retracting a viewpoint, you are still taking a side.

 

[milohimself]

He personally has his own, typically liberal, bias, but I watch the show regularly and if they pick on anything, it's sensationalism from 24 hour tv news outlets. I don't think I've seen a week go bye in a while where he hasn't gotten after Obama for something.

 

[GAVol]

He personally has his own, typically liberal, bias, but I watch the show regularly and if they pick on anything, it's sensationalism from 24 hour tv news outlets. I don't think I've seen a week go bye in a while where he hasn't gotten after Obama for something.

Usually he's banging on Democrats for not being more hellbent liberal.