Why The Left Loves Socialism

[danielpalos]

The Left love socialism because they embrace the cultural Marxist practice of critical theory.

critical thinking is what distinguishes the left, from the right.

But you don't practice critical thinking. You practice critical theory. They are not the same thing.

i practice both; you simply need more practice.

You don't even know the difference between the two.

critical, is the operative term. and, i am suggesting improvements to our Republic.

 

[danielpalos]

the left loves liberal socialism, because we believe in a better future.

the logically challenged left also believes in non sequiturs, I believe a better future means less of what you want

Our Space Race not good enough for you; why not pay SpaceX a tip, to ensure promptness.

the space race? lol, no it actually isn't good enough

ingrate. you should be more grateful for all of the spin off technologies we got out of it.

why not just invest in the spinoffs instead then? typical left wing garbage, justifying massive govt spending as some sort of economic miracle.

because, it is a (learning) process of discovery. only the national socialist right wing doesn't understand the concepts. only State Capitalism can afford such undertakings as, going to the Moon, a Manhattan Project, or Hoover Dam.

 

[danielpalos]

dears, socialism beat capitalism to the Moon and back, and capitalism is still, trying to compete.

Some morons here keep mentioning the moon shot. First of all, the number of private industries who contributed through government contracts for this endeavor was in the thousands. Millions upon millions of man hours of labor were essential and it was done by free market capitalists in a free market capitalist system, not a socialist one. Individuals working for their own economic enrichment and sense of self-achievement. The socialist system barely got into space and has yet to reach the moon.

Secondly, and more importantly, there was very little about the moon landings that directly contributed to the general social condition. It was a source of pride for society but in terms of cost, imagine how many hungry children could have been fed, homeless housed or sick people cared for with the billions of dollars that were spent. So in terms of direct societal benefit, there was very little reward. The real and tangible windfall came in terms of capitalist endeavor that followed our success. The thousands upon thousands of technologies and advances we made through research and development as a result of this project, which capitalists turned into bringing good things to our everyday lives in a meaningful way. It was the explosion of capitalist products and services brought forth by this project that ultimately benefited society and it was done through free market capitalism.

Dumb bunnies who do not comprehend what "Socialism" means, will try and lay claim to these achievements but they are clearly realized through free market endeavor and not Socialism.

Only the national socialist right wing is clueless and Causeless. State Capitalism, or national socialism, is still a form of socialism.

Let me know when SpaceX earns a profit going to the Moon and back.

 

[danielpalos]

dears, socialism beat capitalism to the Moon and back, and capitalism is still, trying to compete.

Some morons here keep mentioning the moon shot. First of all, the number of private industries who contributed through government contracts for this endeavor was in the thousands. Millions upon millions of man hours of labor were essential and it was done by free market capitalists in a free market capitalist system, not a socialist one. Individuals working for their own economic enrichment and sense of self-achievement. The socialist system barely got into space and has yet to reach the moon.

Secondly, and more importantly, there was very little about the moon landings that directly contributed to the general social condition. It was a source of pride for society but in terms of cost, imagine how many hungry children could have been fed, homeless housed or sick people cared for with the billions of dollars that were spent. So in terms of direct societal benefit, there was very little reward. The real and tangible windfall came in terms of capitalist endeavor that followed our success. The thousands upon thousands of technologies and advances we made through research and development as a result of this project, which capitalists turned into bringing good things to our everyday lives in a meaningful way. It was the explosion of capitalist products and services brought forth by this project that ultimately benefited society and it was done through free market capitalism.

Dumb bunnies who do not comprehend what "Socialism" means, will try and lay claim to these achievements but they are clearly realized through free market endeavor and not Socialism.

The moonshot was a political cold war stunt, any sane analysis of the economic payoff shows negative returns.

Even more astonishing, the landing pitted one type of economy versus another, and the more command and control centralized economy lost, yet here we have left wing idiots claiming the Apollo program proves their point. There is a reason the US government contracted out to Grumman to build the moon lander and didn't build it themselves, it is because socialism generally sucks at production.

That being said, I still like space exploration, it is a waste if you want economic growth but that is not what it should be for

just clueless and Causeless?

most of our high tech stuff came from learning how to go to the Moon and back.

 

[NCC1701]

Mistakenly attributed NASA spinoffs

The following is a list of technologies sometimes mistakenly attributed directly to NASA. In many cases, NASA popularized technology or aided its development, which ultimately resulted in the technology's creation.

If you will go back and re-read what I posted, this is exactly what I argued. Trying to change my argument into something you can defeat is an intellectually dishonest game. I never claimed NASA invented or developed these things, I merely pointed out their development (and/or improvement) was largely the result of knowledge and technology gained through the space program. You simply CONFIRMED my argument... Thank you!

you are the dishonest one, you said I simply would not have the microchip and that is patently false

 

[danielpalos]

For the money put in, there was not a 'vast degree of knowledge and technology produced', there is no analysis that shows that outside of NASAs own propaganda.

Well, you're wrong. That's all I can say. You can call it "NASA propaganda" if you like, but there are thousands of products you simply wouldn't have because they wouldn't exist without the research from our space program. The microchip being probably the most profound example. Most all wireless and cordless technology we use today. Digital imaging, MRIs, GPS, solar panels, memory foam, velcro, the list goes on and on.

well no, you can say that you are wrong, your hand waving is not correct nor is it an analysis. I'll add GPS to the list of your incorrect assertions, GPS was developed for the military, not NASA. Digital imaging? no, that wasn't nasa

NASA spin-off technologies - Wikipedia

Mistakenly attributed NASA spinoffs
The following is a list of technologies sometimes mistakenly attributed directly to NASA. In many cases, NASA popularized technology or aided its development, which ultimately resulted in the technology's creation.

• Cordless power tools (The first cordless power tool was unveiled by Black & Decker in 1961. It was used by NASA and a number of spinoff products came out of that.)
• Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), best known as a device for body scanning. (NASA contractor JPL developed digital signal processing, which does have applications in medical imaging.)
• Quartz clocks (The quartz clock dates back to 1927. However, in the late 1960s, NASA partnered with a company to make a quartz clock that was on the market for a few years.)
• Smoke detectors (NASA’s connection to the modern smoke detector is that it made one with adjustable sensitivity as part of the Skylab project.)
• Tang juice powder (Tang was developed by General Foods in 1957, and it has been for sale since 1959. It was used in the first orbit missions, which gave awareness to it.)
• Teflon (Invented by a DuPont scientist in 1941 and used on frying pans from the 1950s.[4] It has been applied by NASA to heat shields, space suits, and cargo hold liners.)
• Velcro (A Swiss invention from the 1940s. Velcro was used during the Apollo missions to anchor equipment for astronauts’ convenience in zero gravity situations.)
• Microchip (The first microchips were developed more than ten years before the first moon landing.)[7]

Just socialism bailing out capitalism, like usual.

 

[danielpalos]

Who won the Moon Race; the socialism of Government or capitalists with private property?

 

[danielpalos]

Mistakenly attributed NASA spinoffs

The following is a list of technologies sometimes mistakenly attributed directly to NASA. In many cases, NASA popularized technology or aided its development, which ultimately resulted in the technology's creation.

If you will go back and re-read what I posted, this is exactly what I argued. Trying to change my argument into something you can defeat is an intellectually dishonest game. I never claimed NASA invented or developed these things, I merely pointed out their development (and/or improvement) was largely the result of knowledge and technology gained through the space program. You simply CONFIRMED my argument... Thank you!

you are the dishonest one, you said I simply would not have the microchip and that is patently false

national socialism got us into computers.

 

[NCC1701]

Mistakenly attributed NASA spinoffs

The following is a list of technologies sometimes mistakenly attributed directly to NASA. In many cases, NASA popularized technology or aided its development, which ultimately resulted in the technology's creation.

If you will go back and re-read what I posted, this is exactly what I argued. Trying to change my argument into something you can defeat is an intellectually dishonest game. I never claimed NASA invented or developed these things, I merely pointed out their development (and/or improvement) was largely the result of knowledge and technology gained through the space program. You simply CONFIRMED my argument... Thank you!

''technology gained'' would be the same as inventing it which is incorrect for the list I provided, popularizing something is called advertising, and so what?

You said I would not even have microchips for example, and that simply is not true, the microprocessor and chip scale electronics was driven by consumer markets in radios, calculators, and the PC, all of which would be here without the Apollo program. That is not changing your argument or a nitpick, it is very much the converse of your claim.

You also performed no cost benefit analysis, nor demonstrated it was necessary to go to the moon in order to develop your list of tech.

 

[NCC1701]

Mistakenly attributed NASA spinoffs

The following is a list of technologies sometimes mistakenly attributed directly to NASA. In many cases, NASA popularized technology or aided its development, which ultimately resulted in the technology's creation.

If you will go back and re-read what I posted, this is exactly what I argued. Trying to change my argument into something you can defeat is an intellectually dishonest game. I never claimed NASA invented or developed these things, I merely pointed out their development (and/or improvement) was largely the result of knowledge and technology gained through the space program. You simply CONFIRMED my argument... Thank you!

you are the dishonest one, you said I simply would not have the microchip and that is patently false

national socialism got us into computers.

only an idiot would confuse a microchip with a computer

 

[NCC1701]

Thinking of the greatest inventions in the last 120 years, only nuclear power stands out as something only a government would do.

The airplane, the car, the integrated circuit/solid state electronics, the rocket, smartphone, microwave oven, digital camera, and many others were all private enterprises. It isn't even close when comparing private inventions economic impact with govt.

 

[danielpalos]

Mistakenly attributed NASA spinoffs

The following is a list of technologies sometimes mistakenly attributed directly to NASA. In many cases, NASA popularized technology or aided its development, which ultimately resulted in the technology's creation.

If you will go back and re-read what I posted, this is exactly what I argued. Trying to change my argument into something you can defeat is an intellectually dishonest game. I never claimed NASA invented or developed these things, I merely pointed out their development (and/or improvement) was largely the result of knowledge and technology gained through the space program. You simply CONFIRMED my argument... Thank you!

you are the dishonest one, you said I simply would not have the microchip and that is patently false

national socialism got us into computers.

only an idiot would confuse a microchip with a computer

computers are important for trajectory and intercept purposes.

 

[danielpalos]

Thinking of the greatest inventions in the last 120 years, only nuclear power stands out as something only a government would do.

The airplane, the car, the integrated circuit/solid state electronics, the rocket, smartphone, microwave oven, digital camera, and many others were all private enterprises. It isn't even close when comparing private inventions economic impact with govt.

Just an most excellent form of liberal socialist planning, and merely and simply using capitalism, for all of its worth:

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries:

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Unearned Benefits

 

[ding]

The Left love socialism because they embrace the cultural Marxist practice of critical theory.

critical thinking is what distinguishes the left, from the right.

But you don't practice critical thinking. You practice critical theory. They are not the same thing.

i practice both; you simply need more practice.

You don't even know the difference between the two.

critical, is the operative term. and, i am suggesting improvements to our Republic.

You don't know what you are talking about. Critical theory and critical thinking are the antithesis of of each other.

 

[danielpalos]

Unearned Benefits

examples?

 

[danielpalos]

critical thinking is what distinguishes the left, from the right.

But you don't practice critical thinking. You practice critical theory. They are not the same thing.

i practice both; you simply need more practice.

You don't even know the difference between the two.

critical, is the operative term. and, i am suggesting improvements to our Republic.

You don't know what you are talking about. Critical theory and critical thinking are the antithesis of of each other.

no, they are not. critique of self and government, is worth while.

 

[ding]

But you don't practice critical thinking. You practice critical theory. They are not the same thing.

i practice both; you simply need more practice.

You don't even know the difference between the two.

critical, is the operative term. and, i am suggesting improvements to our Republic.

You don't know what you are talking about. Critical theory and critical thinking are the antithesis of of each other.

no, they are not. critique of self and government, is worth while.

Not the way that filthy cultural Marxists practice it.

 

[danielpalos]

i practice both; you simply need more practice.

You don't even know the difference between the two.

critical, is the operative term. and, i am suggesting improvements to our Republic.

You don't know what you are talking about. Critical theory and critical thinking are the antithesis of of each other.

no, they are not. critique of self and government, is worth while.

Not the way that filthy cultural Marxists practice it.

nothing but the fallacy of ad hominem? how critical is that.

 

[ding]

You don't even know the difference between the two.

critical, is the operative term. and, i am suggesting improvements to our Republic.

You don't know what you are talking about. Critical theory and critical thinking are the antithesis of of each other.

no, they are not. critique of self and government, is worth while.

Not the way that filthy cultural Marxists practice it.

nothing but the fallacy of ad hominem? how critical is that.

That's not ad homemin. Cultural Marxists are filthy. There is nothing good about them.