Nope, none of the links were to point-by-point comparisons as you attempted.
A point-by-point comparison probably didn't exist because you're the only one who mistakenly thinks its a relevant comparison to make in the first place!
Socialism is simply Communism-lite â" the differences are in a degree
And liberalism is simply socialism-lite. And conservativism is simply liberalism-lite. And fascism (or dominionism, or both) is simply conservativism-lite. It's all a spectrum, if we go by your logic.
But we shouldn't go by your logic, because your logic is wrong and stupid. Sanders' brand of pseudo-socialism is qualitatively different than communism in that the former is much less authoritarian. Political ideology cannot be described by only one axis, and while socialism and communism are on the same side of the "conservative-liberal" axis they're far apart on the "libertarian-authoritarian" one.
("conservative-liberal" is really two different axes in and of itself, but I can't be bothered to go into that detail right now.)
And he is calling himself "Socialist", which would be a misnomer, if he opposed nationalization.
It's a compound misnomer: it's a misnomer on Sanders' part because he's not actually a socialist, and it's a misnomer on your part, because socialists don't want to nationalize everything, communists do. Your attempt to conflate socialists with communists is a strawman fallacy.
Venezuela's infrastructure-erosion was not part of Chavez plan, it was a consequence of his misgoverning.
Again, price-controls were a reaction to economy going down the toilet â" it was not Chavez plan to do it.
But that was not part of his proposals either â" it was simply a result of his ideas put to life.
These three arguments are all the same, and all equally fallacious. You're trying to argue that just because Chavez was bad at governing and happened to be a socialist, that all socialists must be bad at governing, which is a hasty generalization fallacy.
Ah, so sweet to see a Leftist throw a former idol under the bus
WTF are you talking about? (A) I am not a leftist, (B) I've never given the slightest shit about Chavez, and barely knew who he was until I looked him up on Wikipedia to answer your inane post. So that's another strawman, with an ad-hominem thrown in for good measure.
But, either way, personal corruption has nothing to do with economics or foreign policies.
No. You don't get to assert that without the slightest hint of any kind of reason. I specifically explained why it is a goddamn economic issue -- namely, that "corruption begets inefficiency" -- so your choices are either to refute it or concede the point!
Chavez was not "soft on crime" â" he was hard on competent policemen, whom he feared and replaced with loyal (if incompetent) ones.
Okay, fine. Then show me the similarity: the burden of proof is on you to show that Sanders somehow fears competent policemen.
Chavez didn't support "terrorism", he supported like-minded Communists, who used terrorism (among other methods) "for the greater good"
That's a no true scotsman fallacy. People who use terrorism are terrorists. FARC used terrorism, therefore FARC were terrorists. Chavez supported FARC, FARC were terrorists, therefore Chavez supported terrorists. QE-fucking-D!
I'm yet to be reassured, Sanders will be different in practice.
This is pure FUD.
Huh? You mean, he will not use the "carrot" of money to advance causes he likes?
No, he is unelectable, because his rhetoric is indistinguishable from that of Hugo Chavez.
That is a blatant lie.
Don't take my word for it â" when I asked the good Senator's fans here on Slashdot, all I got was the customary avalanche of hate, but no discernible differences. The most useful response pointed out that, unlike the late El Presidente, Bernie Sanders is not an anti-Semite. But nothing relevant to the economy or foreign policy was identified...
This is also a blatant lie: several people linked to exactly the answer you wanted, but you used the fact that they didn't spoon-feed it to you as an excuse to ignore it.
Nevertheless, I'll humor your whiny, infantile ass and list some differences directly:
Chavez is a communist in the literal sense: nationalization of industry, organizing people into communes and price controls. Sanders wants none of those things.
Chavez overspent on social programs, causing Venezuela's economy to fail. Although Sanders also wants to expand social programs (but not anywhere close to the degree Chavez did), he has proposed reasonable plans for paying for it, making Sanders much more fiscally responsible (and also more fiscally responsible than Bush II, for that matter!)
Chavez neglected infrastructure; Sanders wants to increase spending enough to significantly improve it (possibly more so than any other candidate).
Chavez instituted currency controls; Sanders has (as far as I know) never advocated such a thing.
Chavez was all sorts of corrupt; Sanders is the least-corrupt major-party candidate in this election. (Note: this is an economic issue, as corruption begets inefficiency.)
Chavez was soft on violent crime; Sanders is not. (Sanders is interested in reducing the number of people incarcerated for victimless drug crimes, but not violent crime.)
Chavez was a militant who supported terrorism (e.g. FARC), Sanders is the opposite.
Venezuela and the United States have such different positions in the international community that foreign policy comparisons are almost impossible, but it's a fair bet Sanders wouldn't use "oil diplomacy."
And of course, those are only economic and foreign policy differences. In pretty much every other way -- use of military force, (lack of) respect for civil rights, level of corruption, environmental policy, etc. -- Chavez is much more similar to the Republican candidates than he is to Sanders!
Sanders is an "actual Socialist" in the same way that I'm an "actual ham sandwich" -- which is to say, not at all. He might call himself that, but his actual policy agenda is moderate. Lots of past Presidents were closer to being socialist than Sanders is, including some Republican ones (e.g. Teddy Roosevelt and maybe Eisenhower).
I'm finding it hard to understand why the DNC/establishment is so gung-ho about Clinton
Because Clinton is a corrupt fucking sociopath, which means she's much easier to make underhanded political deals with, so the other corrupt fucking sociopaths like working with her.
Firewalls? Please. Anyone who knows anything about what a firewall is knows that firewalls do not do this sort of thing. Firewalls are 100% about controlling which ports are open or closed on a computer, and under what circumstances.
No, "firewalls" are 100% about stopping literal fire from spreading from one part of a building to another. Anybody who knows anything about what a firewall is knows that, so you must be some kind of complete moron!
See what happens when you disregard context? You make a fool of yourself. In this case, the non-technical politicians making the public statements are obviously using the word in a much less formal context than you assume.
Granted, they probably should have called it a Chinese wall instead...
The only "reason" Sanders has for being allegedly-unelectable is that Hillary shills like you repeatedly assert that it's so, but it isn't. And we're done listening to you!
The jury held that BMG had *proved* the users violated copyright. (By a preponderance of the evidence, because it is a civil case--you don't have to prove it beyond reasonable doubt.)
Were BMG's claims contested, or did they get a default judgement?
At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if the situation were so fucked up that BMG could somehow manage to hold Cox responsible for notifying the alleged infringers of the suit, meaning that Cox's decision not to identify them caused the "proof" of the claim in the first place.
No, the judge shut down a company. This was directly caused by the fact that WhatsApp is proprietary, closed shit. Open standard protocols, like email, IRC and XMPP do not have this problem.
I hope all the dumbasses who got sucked into using WhatsApp have learned a valuable lesson.
I want to put an addition on the house (which would change the roof line) first, and putting up solar only to have to take it down and reinstall it after only a short time seems silly. Unfortunately, it's at the far end of my home-improvement critical path.
Great idea, but they should cover the roof of the building with panels first (because the mounting system is cheaper since they don't need clearance for cars).
That's why they should build solar farms in cities instead. The insolated area on top of all those roofs mostly isn't being used for anything important.
I wish my town had three per 800 people! Since I live in a major city, that probably means every roof would have solar and we'd be supplanting coal for a pretty big fraction of our power usage.
This phenomenon can be summarized as "corporations hate private ownership of property, and want us all to be serfs instead so that they can collect rent in perpetuity."
are you arguing and suggesting that Fox news has reported inaccurately?
Fox does not report any particular fact inaccurately [without an excuse]. Instead, what it does is pick and choose which facts to report in order to imply a misleading conclusion. It also carefully chooses who to interview, so that slick, well-spoken Republicans can have a "fair and balanced" debate against the most moronic Democrat they can get their hands on. Moreover, when those Republican interviewees blatantly lie, the anchors can repeat that "[person] said [claim], and he seems very credible" over and over again. The anchor never technically lied -- [person] did say [claim] -- but the anchor is complicit in spreading the lie.
How does one get a degree with 6+ years of prerequisites which are only available after getting a high school diploma, which requires wasting time in high school learning underwater basket weaving for at least 4 years, which requires another 3 years wasting time being bullied in middle school, which requires another 6 years wasting time at the K-5 level being forced to endure basic shit you mastered in 2nd grade over and over again
Because none of those things are actually true. Wikipedia has an article listing 20 different ways of circumventing that bullshit. If you think you should have been a PhD-at-20 wunderkind, either you aren't as smart as you think you are, or you should blame your parents either for not being aware of those options or for holding you back in hopes you'd develop better social skills (which clearly didn't work, if that's what happened).
I bet somebody will reply to explain why this causes some sort of horrible mathematical flaw that makes it insecure, but couldn't you just compress the information first, then encrypt the result?
Go ahead. Invent yourself a master key. Note how all the criminals will be using private encryption that doesn't have backdoors. Note how this won't help you at all.
Of course it will help! It will help sabotage political opposition, destroy Free Speech, and do all sorts of other things that benefit the established elite. That's why all those goddamn authoritarian fuckwads love the idea so much!
Slashdot Mirror
A point-by-point comparison probably didn't exist because you're the only one who mistakenly thinks its a relevant comparison to make in the first place!
And liberalism is simply socialism-lite. And conservativism is simply liberalism-lite. And fascism (or dominionism, or both) is simply conservativism-lite. It's all a spectrum, if we go by your logic.
But we shouldn't go by your logic, because your logic is wrong and stupid. Sanders' brand of pseudo-socialism is qualitatively different than communism in that the former is much less authoritarian. Political ideology cannot be described by only one axis, and while socialism and communism are on the same side of the "conservative-liberal" axis they're far apart on the "libertarian-authoritarian" one.
("conservative-liberal" is really two different axes in and of itself, but I can't be bothered to go into that detail right now.)
It's a compound misnomer: it's a misnomer on Sanders' part because he's not actually a socialist, and it's a misnomer on your part, because socialists don't want to nationalize everything, communists do. Your attempt to conflate socialists with communists is a strawman fallacy.
These three arguments are all the same, and all equally fallacious. You're trying to argue that just because Chavez was bad at governing and happened to be a socialist, that all socialists must be bad at governing, which is a hasty generalization fallacy.
WTF are you talking about? (A) I am not a leftist, (B) I've never given the slightest shit about Chavez, and barely knew who he was until I looked him up on Wikipedia to answer your inane post. So that's another strawman, with an ad-hominem thrown in for good measure.
No. You don't get to assert that without the slightest hint of any kind of reason. I specifically explained why it is a goddamn economic issue -- namely, that "corruption begets inefficiency" -- so your choices are either to refute it or concede the point!
Okay, fine. Then show me the similarity: the burden of proof is on you to show that Sanders somehow fears competent policemen.
That's a no true scotsman fallacy. People who use terrorism are terrorists. FARC used terrorism, therefore FARC were terrorists. Chavez supported FARC, FARC were terrorists, therefore Chavez supported terrorists. QE-fucking-D!
This is pure FUD.
That is a blatant lie.
This is also a blatant lie: several people linked to exactly the answer you wanted, but you used the fact that they didn't spoon-feed it to you as an excuse to ignore it.
Nevertheless, I'll humor your whiny, infantile ass and list some differences directly:
And of course, those are only economic and foreign policy differences. In pretty much every other way -- use of military force, (lack of) respect for civil rights, level of corruption, environmental policy, etc. -- Chavez is much more similar to the Republican candidates than he is to Sanders!
Sanders is an "actual Socialist" in the same way that I'm an "actual ham sandwich" -- which is to say, not at all. He might call himself that, but his actual policy agenda is moderate. Lots of past Presidents were closer to being socialist than Sanders is, including some Republican ones (e.g. Teddy Roosevelt and maybe Eisenhower).
It's justified if it's true, and it's probably true.
Obvious shill is obvious.
Sanders has never been racist or sexist.
In fact, by falsely accusing him as such -- based solely on his race and gender -- Clinton reveals herself to be racist and sexist!
Bullshit. Hillary is 30 points ahead among obsolete nitwits who still have landline phones. Among actual voters, she'll lose.
Because Clinton is a corrupt fucking sociopath, which means she's much easier to make underhanded political deals with, so the other corrupt fucking sociopaths like working with her.
No, "firewalls" are 100% about stopping literal fire from spreading from one part of a building to another. Anybody who knows anything about what a firewall is knows that, so you must be some kind of complete moron!
See what happens when you disregard context? You make a fool of yourself. In this case, the non-technical politicians making the public statements are obviously using the word in a much less formal context than you assume.
Granted, they probably should have called it a Chinese wall instead...
Go fuck yourself, shill.
The only "reason" Sanders has for being allegedly-unelectable is that Hillary shills like you repeatedly assert that it's so, but it isn't. And we're done listening to you!
Were BMG's claims contested, or did they get a default judgement?
At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if the situation were so fucked up that BMG could somehow manage to hold Cox responsible for notifying the alleged infringers of the suit, meaning that Cox's decision not to identify them caused the "proof" of the claim in the first place.
No, because fiction doesn't count.
That, and build them away from areas prone to natural disasters.
No, the judge shut down a company. This was directly caused by the fact that WhatsApp is proprietary, closed shit. Open standard protocols, like email, IRC and XMPP do not have this problem.
I hope all the dumbasses who got sucked into using WhatsApp have learned a valuable lesson.
I want to put an addition on the house (which would change the roof line) first, and putting up solar only to have to take it down and reinstall it after only a short time seems silly. Unfortunately, it's at the far end of my home-improvement critical path.
Great idea, but they should cover the roof of the building with panels first (because the mounting system is cheaper since they don't need clearance for cars).
That's why they should build solar farms in cities instead. The insolated area on top of all those roofs mostly isn't being used for anything important.
I wish my town had three per 800 people! Since I live in a major city, that probably means every roof would have solar and we'd be supplanting coal for a pretty big fraction of our power usage.
AMD owns no fabs; they don't make hardware. They only design it.
...much less often.
This phenomenon can be summarized as "corporations hate private ownership of property, and want us all to be serfs instead so that they can collect rent in perpetuity."
I read it in the newspaper.
Fox does not report any particular fact inaccurately [without an excuse]. Instead, what it does is pick and choose which facts to report in order to imply a misleading conclusion. It also carefully chooses who to interview, so that slick, well-spoken Republicans can have a "fair and balanced" debate against the most moronic Democrat they can get their hands on. Moreover, when those Republican interviewees blatantly lie, the anchors can repeat that "[person] said [claim], and he seems very credible" over and over again. The anchor never technically lied -- [person] did say [claim] -- but the anchor is complicit in spreading the lie.
Because none of those things are actually true. Wikipedia has an article listing 20 different ways of circumventing that bullshit. If you think you should have been a PhD-at-20 wunderkind, either you aren't as smart as you think you are, or you should blame your parents either for not being aware of those options or for holding you back in hopes you'd develop better social skills (which clearly didn't work, if that's what happened).
I bet somebody will reply to explain why this causes some sort of horrible mathematical flaw that makes it insecure, but couldn't you just compress the information first, then encrypt the result?
Of course it will help! It will help sabotage political opposition, destroy Free Speech, and do all sorts of other things that benefit the established elite. That's why all those goddamn authoritarian fuckwads love the idea so much!