That's fine and love to connect, you seem like an intersting guy, I probably can drink if I want to just been doing the "white knuckle" thing here lately but I can get you a quadrupole coronary bypass burger since you are an upstate guy - I would be concerned taking MD past the triple at the Vortex as I equate mid atlantic lacrosse guys to the highly skilled eastern european soft ones and upstate guys as the candians who have 6 teeth and when they get drunk after games stand in the middle of the street to direct traffic and subsequently use their one phone call to order Chinese food (true story, buddy forwarded me a thing about a Bruin who did exactly that in the 70s). This is all just a distraction to the real world.a fan wrote: ↑Sat Sep 25, 2021 2:06 amYou want me to address ten pages of cut and paste textbook definitions? Come on. Neither of us have the time for that.Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Sat Sep 25, 2021 1:50 am If you refuse to take it on the whole and want to weave through parts I don't see an honest interest in discourse.
I'm not trying to "win". You're telling me that socialism isn't in Websters. It's more complicated than that, right?
Great. Keep it simple, and answer my original question: how is my University of Virginia example NOT an example of pure Socialism?
Edit to add-----I should be out your way this fall. Perhaps I just buy you a few whiskies/beers, and we'll shoot the sh*t in person? This format makes these conversations near impossible. Cheers
I'd hope you understand that there's a huge flaw in that process of chopping it down to portions as if they are standalone and not part of a larger point/argument/thesis. These arguments can't be reduced to the simplification you are using unless it's about winning and losing rather than finding a higher truth and it doesn't necessarily require you to respond. Like my little old lady psychologist who's the only person in the world that can get away talking to me like she does "cut the s**t, I know you are intelligent and can talk circles around anything in order to justify something in your own mind, but I have a PhD too and am smart, but this accomplishes nothing unless you like paying for the privilege of making arguments". If the goal is to understand better perhaps not immediately looking to respond, particularly on something this complex, and then additionally throwing out 90% of a comprehensive point, dismissing literature (that I stated was non-academic, I'll give you white papers but let's be honest at best you'll look at the abstract, find 2-3 sentences that validate what you want it to and volley those back over the net), etc.
It makes it almost impossible to continue the dialogue in this medium and forces the other to break a fuller point into specific component parts as if they can all work individually and independently. Just like I ask RRR to try and actually discuss and respond in English, that would be my request to you.
I was frustrated tthat you're telling me what Paul Krugman means when I've read his works and watched him on This week roundtable for 15yrs and can tell you point blank he isn't saying what you are telling me he's saying. I would put my deed on it. Perhaps he's made that argument elsewhere but not in the plethora of instances I can cite which means he's making specious and incorrect arguments. Or that you throw out the entire piece I pulled spending time trying to find a good one that reflects the hardcore academic stuff I've read and know in a more street level description with a waive of the hand and not even knowing the source. Do I look like the characters that grab trash and call it gold around here?
I didn't say socialism isn't in webster's, I'm saying a political and economic living theory cannot be defined by Websters. And I have hundreds, if not, thousands of experts on this space that will support me here. But conversely if you took five seconds to google you'll find a concise definition of public good that doesn't require you to try to argue against it if you wanted to be consistent with your prior arguments - https://www.britannica.com/topic/public-good-economics