I enjoyed most of his movies but unfortunately he has had his battles with mental health.
Maybe he needs to check his meds.
Jim Carrey: "We have to say yes to socialism."
- Thread starter canada-man
- Start date
Maybe he needs to check his meds.
And what qualifications do you have over Carrie?
(this is #5 on the D-factor list, by the way)
He can of course move back to Canada any second he wants to.
Were your garbage collector to decide to inform you as to his/her radical political perspectives, I rather doubt that he or she would be given the deference of Jim Carrey who has no qualifications outside acting.
Were your garbage collector to decide to inform you as to his/her radical political perspectives, I rather doubt that he or she would be given the deference of Jim Carrey who has no qualifications outside acting.
Who said socialism has anything to do with not being rich or not wanting to live nicely? Socialism delivers more wealth to more people. Its just that simple.
who said socialism if anti-capitalist? That is not remotley correct. Socilaism is not communism. The USA is a very socialist country.
The definition of socialism says it. All of you people keep inventing, explaining different "varieties" of what you perceive to be socialism. But, actually, the definition is fairly narrow with the bottom line being the nationalization of the economy. That is what makes socialism directly in opposition to capitalism. Kids point to Sweden or Canada and scream- look, socialism works! But, does it? Do those countries have a socialist economy? A "free" basic education or an old age pension is NOT socialism, it never was. A free market econmy (capitalism) makes such social agreements possible.
You either don't know what you are talking about, or you are dishonest.
When somebody proposes universal health care and free education for all paid via taxes, you scream: "Socialism"
But then, " the definition is fairly narrow with the bottom line being the nationalization of the economy"
LOL
LOL, indeed. Except that I went to school and learned that socialism is an ECONOMIC system, above all. Social programs are a side effect of an efficient free market that is able to generate wealth to pay for them. That's why the "free" social programs in countries with a rotten or "socialist" economies are worthless. The math is simple-shitty economy = shitty social programs. The level of spending on the social network, btw, is determined by the voters.
In its purest form Socialism may mean that, but in its purest form capitalism is quite a different beast as well. If we were in a pure capitalistic model, most of use would likely be serfs. Most western economies are market based with some major elements of socialism where it makes sense. Public goods for example, defence etc etc.
Regulations on a free market economy like anti trust laws, labour and environmental, etc. have little to do with socialism. Actually, socialist economy lacks those same laws especially the worker protection rules and anti monopoly laws. The modern free market model emerged along the rise of representative governments. Hence, capitalism is tempered by the electoral influences of the middle class. The pure capitalism, as witnessed, mid 19th century and on, was unencumbered by today's restrictions and, therefore, predatory. The socialists(Marx et all) correctly indentified the problems, but offered unworkable solutions like collectivism and nationalization of industries. Unfortunately, the 19th century theories are very much alive, to this day. Why they call them progressive, I don't know since it is an objective historical fact that socialism does not work because of the human nature and the simplest fact that, in the end, someone must pay for it. In the nut shell, we can only have as much socialism as we can afford.
Are you saying unionization and labour rights are not socialist? Govt monopoly on healthcare and nationalalized healthcare, some crown corporations etc etc?
And I'm sure the garbage collector wouldn't get the blowback that any rich person speaking in support of socialism gets from the Far Right. Let's be honest. One of the great motivators for no name, run of the mill righties is frothing at the mouth when someone more successful and famous - and frankly that's pretty much anyone, isn't it? - says something that they don't like. Yawn.....
What I'm saying is that a socialist society does not allow free and independent unions. Why? Because they challenge the authority of the state. I would urge you to look into the subject a bit closer. Which socialist entity, one that actually tried the socialist economic model, allowed free and independent unions? You can have socialism and all the "free" shit you can dream of, but what are you prepared to surrender?
Wrong again
https://www.google.ca/search?source...0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..1.4.470.0...0.P3mHyJredTs
When was the last time the US nationalized an industry?
Socialism is just a half step away from communism.
I pay taxes in Canada for starters, so I have first hand experience watching someone else mismanage half of what I earn. No need to take that % to higher levels thank you
I also see you lie and intentionally mislead others is support of socialism, & we all know that you never get anything right.
I also watched what socialism did to Venezuela
Wow, such stellar qualifications.
Well, since I pay more taxes then you, I think I'm more qualified and your opinion becomes worthless.
Might be helpful if you posted the full video so we can judge for ourselves what he actually said and the context. Further, he's a left-winger speaking on a left-wing show and said something to get applause out of the audience. Regardless, if we're living in a capitalist, socialist or somewhere in between state, we've all benefited immensely by it vs many people in the world.
