Wrath of Dagon

She knows what it is, everyone is equal but the pigs are more equal.

Yes, never happens: http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2017/02/05/texas-putting-mexican-national-trial-alleged-illegal-voting/

So I would say a country where most means of production are owned by the government is a socialist country. May be you can come up with other definitions, but unless they are historically significant I would argue that they're useless.

Alternative facts from Judge Robart: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-judge-robarts-national-security-expertise/article/2614043#.WJjy9vX4-wI.twitter

Just in time for this thread then.

Easily. Publicly Listed Cimpanies are collectively owned and are not owned by the government, they're also at least theoretically little d democratic. Otherwise, Co-Ops, syndicates, Apoism etc etc, they're even properly democratic. Personally, I'd get rid of 'democratic' though, and go for the straight 2-axes political compass style set up of having left (socialist) and right (capitalist) with both of those being independent of the authoritarian (statist, undemocratic)/ anarchism (libertarianism, democratic) axis. OK, so corporations are actually socialist, I got it. Collective ownership generally means owned by society, not by a group of people. Nope, you're just using an 'alternative definition' of what collective ownership means. Collective ownership = "ownership by many individuals, for the benefit of said individuals". That is, at least theoretically, a company just as much as it is socialism. Collective ownership describes PLCs, it also describes full on communism, co-ops, trusts, governmental ownership, 'commons', syndicates and a whole bunch of other stuff that may or may not also be socialist. There's a specific term for when something is owned by society/ humanity as a whole- common ownership- or government owned when the government owns it. Collective just means owned by a collection of people, it's an umbrella term. OK, but you have to look at the context of what we were discussing, i.e. collective ownership in the socialist sense. Is a collective farm just a corporate-owned farm? I don't think so. Language is always ambiguous, you have to consider the context.

No they don't, apparently you don't know anything about how corporations are run. Shareholders elect the management, they can also remove the management if enough of them agree. Ownership and management are two different things, as has already been explained.

It was the Russian hacking I tell you.

A common shareholder owns the percentage of the corporation corresponding to the percentage of shares he holds. Okay, but he doesnt own the company.....but wait. What is your definition of " owning " Like you get owned every time you post. Let's say you start a company with 2 other guys. You each own 1/3 of the company. If you issue shares, you would each have 1/3 of the shares. Same with a publicly held company, except there might be millions of shareholders. If a shareholder has over 50%, or a block of shareholders get together with over 50%, they're said to have a "controlling interest". Define " controlling interest " ? Means they can make any decision about the company since they have the majority of votes. Could you start googling stuff instead of continuing to ask dumb questions?

A common shareholder owns the percentage of the corporation corresponding to the percentage of shares he holds. Okay, but he doesnt own the company.....but wait. What is your definition of " owning " Like you get owned every time you post. Let's say you start a company with 2 other guys. You each own 1/3 of the company. If you issue shares, you would each have 1/3 of the shares. Same with a publicly held company, except there might be millions of shareholders. If a shareholder has over 50%, or a block of shareholders get together with over 50%, they're said to have a "controlling interest".

A common shareholder owns the percentage of the corporation corresponding to the percentage of shares he holds. Trump called it too, he said Patriots by 8 points.

That one was apparently a bunch of lies also.

Easily. Publicly Listed Cimpanies are collectively owned and are not owned by the government, they're also at least theoretically little d democratic. Otherwise, Co-Ops, syndicates, Apoism etc etc, they're even properly democratic. Personally, I'd get rid of 'democratic' though, and go for the straight 2-axes political compass style set up of having left (socialist) and right (capitalist) with both of those being independent of the authoritarian (statist, undemocratic)/ anarchism (libertarianism, democratic) axis. OK, so corporations are actually socialist, I got it. Collective ownership generally means owned by society, not by a group of people. For example share ownership. Yes, this and agreements like trusts, partnerships and hedge fund investment or just normal investments that buy assets for the the financial return So there are numerous ways to share ownership and the dividends and profitability I don't think this was what "collective own" means. We have that now, it just means there is more than a single person as owner. Almost all big companies have shareholders, but does that mean they belong "to the people"? No, the people who own shares dont technically own the company but rather benefit from profit in the form of dividends Wow, mister finance guy, that's Hurlshot level of ignorance. Cool, we don't have to follow laws any more, let's go loot an 84 Lumber store.

Just in time for earth day, top NOAA scientist claims global warming data was faked: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html

How do you collectively own something without the government owning it? Any historical examples? And why is "democratic" part of the definition?

Huh, so, every ideal that isn't espoused by the American "Jeffersonian" democratic right is automatically leftist? Does that make Pinochet a commie too? Cuz... nah. Right wing forms of government can't possibly be authoritarian. That trait is leftist. Pinochet wasn't a socialist, quite the opposite.

OK, so what are we arguing about, this is exactly the opposite of a Jeffersonian democracy, which is what American right is all about. Sounds like socialism to me. Communists are international socialists and fascists are national socialists. I don't really follow Milo but I think it's because he's really smart and likes to stick it to the left.

Sure, he wants the left to show what they really are, and profits in the mean time. Edit: More on that here: http://nypost.com/2017/02/02/burning-down-berkeleys-love-of-free-speech/ A primer on weaponized empathy: http://thedeclination.com/more-examples-of-weaponized-empathy/

I'm sure people mid-right never look like people mid-left. Of course the only way we know for sure the top right and top left don't overlap is because there's a black woman on the left. Beware of the rabbit: http://dangerousminds.net/comments/medieval_times_attack_of_the_giant_killer_rabbits Hard to believe those aren't fake.

Why do we care about anything? It's propaganda tens of millions of people will see. Google redefines fascism: http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/04/google-redefines-the-word-fascism-to-smear-conservatives-protect-liberal-rioters/ These are not liberal rioters, at least I wouldn't call them that. Liberals used to share the fundamental American values of free speech, rule of law, and democracy. These are leftist fascist thugs. Edit: Lol, "march for science" http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/444589/left-wingism-overtakes-march-science Milo should thank the rioters, he's going to speak at Berkeley again, and his book is now #1 on Amazon.

This made me laugh quite a lot. And I thought I over interpreted things. The author seems pissed that they in the end go into an expensive Audi and drive away. He sees this as representative of the upper class and they're tight grip on the lower class. Had this been simply a video clip, he would be right. But this is an ad, and thus I find it perfectly reasonable for Audi to show off. And I mean you have to give it to them, the car does look great. But again.... no message aside from "we make good looking cars BUY OUR STUFF PLEASE". The over interpretation of this ad also suffers from a logical error: if Audi beliefs that the upper class should always have the edge over the lower class, then why would they use that as an advertisement strategy? I'm no PR expert, but this does seem like a big middle finger towards many potential soon-to-be customers. So I don't see why they'd actually try to convey that message in an ad. The author of this article seems to be te kind of person who also would think that hard right winged billionaires who lie in bed with Wall Street would be a tremendous representative for the working class. It doesn't make all to much sense when you think about it. Do you think it's normal to portray children in a children's competition as if they just got off the set of Deliverance? Audi makes a product for the wealthy, and the message of the commercial is that the wealthy deserve the best because they're superior to the "others". The author is complaining about them getting into an expensive Audi because they seem to have completely forgotten about the soap box racer, which shows the whole story of the commercial was complete BS.

How fascists take power: https://capitalresearch.org/article/how-fascists-take-power/

Is there anything Trump can't do? https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/256426

I don't feel like looking up all their names right now. It's the groups that have been rioting over the past couple of years, BLM, Occupy, etc. Antifa is a big one. These protesters are incredible. They destroy property, assault people, and demand the police assault their ideological enemies, all while calling the free speech and personal liberty activists fascists. Yes, more from the "anti-fascist" Antifa. https://twitter.com/TheBrandonMorse/status/827520785438953472/photo/1 Oh, I forget, only whites can be fascists.

Who are real fascists these days? That was the question that I asked how you known that they are in power. I don't feel like looking up all their names right now. It's the groups that have been rioting over the past couple of years, BLM, Occupy, etc.