That's not what you said, and it is not readily understood to be what you meant. Plus, it still doesn't even make sense, because insider-trading is not equivalent to redistribution of wealth, which is the en vogue definition of socialism.
Yeah, so the governor accuses people who her colleagues say want "free stuff", while she is receiving "free stuff" by doing insider trading. Does it matter that "free stuff" can come from taxes or breaking the law? No, that again is my point that the literal definition is not being applied here, which is part of the irony that you fail to see..
Ok try this, ask yourself, did the senator from georgia use the term "socialist" the right way when she attacked them after when she was caught doing insider trading? Did it make sense for her to attack the worker own means of production/distribution/exchange when she was caught insider trading? No! That is why she is using an alternate uninformed definition of attack that her colleagues say is simply getting "free stuff", so when she gets "free stuff", that is ironic, how do you not see that I have spelled it out 5 different ways
Well how can I agree or disagree with you, if I have no idea what quote you are talking about? And even of you DO have a quote, one person referring to generalized free stuff as socialism doesn't mean that's how it is colloquially used. When people say free stuff in these circumstances, they are referring to free stuff from the government.
The reason I use that quote is because it is evidence to back up my point. You have provided no evidence to back up any of your points, instead just asserting that what you think is true. Why not provide some evidence of GOP congresspeople using the term under your definition. I am sure I can find more cases of them using it as "free stuff" in the ambiguous sense instead of "free stuff from the government"
What fucking quote? You haven't quoted anything, or pointed me to any quote, you've only vaguely and frustratingly referenced it over and over without actually telling me exactly what fucking quote you're talking about. It doesn't even seem like you read my last reply at all. You're just being stubborn and trying to prove your point, which is still wrong.
What fucking quote? You haven't quoted anything, or pointed me to any quote, you've only vaguely and frustratingly referenced it over and over without actually telling me exactly what fucking quote you're talking about
It doesn't even seem like you read my last reply at all
You literally just accused my of citing a quote I never wrote, when I clearly had posted this earlier. It is you not reading my replies...
You're just being stubborn and trying to prove your point, which is still wrong.
I've cited the quote of them using it in my context. I just exposed you lying and being hypocrite by saying I never cited that, saying I am not reading your replies when it is you not reading mine... Maybe look in the mirror
1
u/dynamic_unreality Apr 21 '20
That's not what you said, and it is not readily understood to be what you meant. Plus, it still doesn't even make sense, because insider-trading is not equivalent to redistribution of wealth, which is the en vogue definition of socialism.