c'mon i haven't done this in a long time:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/04/25/bill_maher_socialism_built_the_middle_class_in_america.html
BILL MAHER: I'm glad this issue of economics came up because this is an important story this week. The United States middle class, for the first time, not the richest in the world. That was kind of crushing when I heard that. It's -- Canada is beating us, I guess. Some of the European countries are still behind, but you know what? When you factor in the fact that those countries have like free college, free healthcare, lots of free good stuff, I don't know, we be even more behind than number two.
But it came out during an interesting week, this story, because this book called Capitalism in the Twenty-First Century (sic) by a French economist named Thomas Piketty -- sold out on Amazon. It is like the most -- you can't get near this book. Not that is anyone is reading this doorstop. I'm sure it's wrong to basically break down a 700-page tome into a few words, but I'm going to. Because, you know, everything is too long today. Movies are too long, books are too long.
Basically what this guy is saying is that under capitalism, income inequality is inevitable, and that when we had a thriving middle class after the war -- after World War II in the '50s and the '60s -- that was the aberration. And, by the way, the reason why we had a thriving middle class then is because of socialism. Because the tax rates on the rich then were 70- to 90-percent. And the house I grew up in was under the G.I. Bill, because my parents were veterans and they could -- that's socialism! That's all socialism.
Socialism built the middle class in America. Deal with that, conservatives!
CHARLES MURRAY: Being the victor in World War II and being the only economy to come out of World War II ruling the world, that didn't hurt either, you know?
MAHER: That's true, that's right. Nobody else was even standing. (HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher, April 25, 2014)
Bill Maher is a stooge.
:lol:
The ad before the video was for Goldman Sachs :lmfao:
Blashpemy
Actually, I'm not a HUGE fan of his...but I do like some of the things he says. But he can be a dick.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 29, 2014, 06:25:27 PM
Bill Maher is a stooge.
He's a cocky smarmy fuck. Even when I want to agree with him I find it hard and kind of disappointed in myself.
Maher can be a huge tool. But of course he's right on this issue. Socialism built our interstate highway system, schools, atom bombs, industrial infrastructure... capitalism merely directed it into inefficient automobiles and systems of suburbs that cost our nation a trillion dollars extra a year to support. Fuck capitalism.
Quote from: Ideologue on April 29, 2014, 06:34:52 PM
Socialism built our interstate highway system, schools, atom bombs, industrial infrastructure
By this logic socialism also gassed six million Jews and threw Chinese babies onto bayonets.
At work I was reading an essay in which the student wrote "If you only watch news that tells you what you already believe, you're watching Fox News!" (Bill Maher). The irony was so thick I could cut it with a chain saw.
Show some gratitude. Socialism rescued South Korea from the terrors of socialism.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 29, 2014, 06:41:16 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on April 29, 2014, 06:34:52 PM
Socialism built our interstate highway system, schools, atom bombs, industrial infrastructure
By this logic socialism also gassed six million Jews and threw Chinese babies onto bayonets.
I thought we'd get to at least 10 posts before Hitler was brought into it. Close.
Quote from: Josephus on April 29, 2014, 06:50:27 PM
I thought we'd get to at least 10 posts before Hitler was brought into it. Close.
Hey, blame Ide, not me.
Quote from: Ideologue on April 29, 2014, 06:42:39 PM
Show some gratitude. Socialism rescued South Korea from the terrors of socialism communism.
Fixed
'Socialsim'? It's like Tim posted this thread or something. :hmm:
I, for one, am glad a carefully designed socialsim was run before the middle class was built.
With a nation this large and diverse, a social democracy is essential.
Unless of course we want to go back to being a very loose federation of states. That worked out really well before the Civil War; I can't imagine why we wouldn't want to return to such an idyllic time.
I have argued before that social democracy can only be successful in small, homogenous countries, like Scandistan.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 29, 2014, 07:44:10 PM
I have argued before that social democracy can only be successful in small, homogenous countries, like Scandistan.
I know you have; I'm not sure that it's a good argument, though.
Quote from: fhdz on April 29, 2014, 07:57:38 PM
I know you have; I'm not sure that it's a good argument, though.
Obviously, as you just stated essentially the opposite. :D
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 29, 2014, 07:58:57 PM
Quote from: fhdz on April 29, 2014, 07:57:38 PM
I know you have; I'm not sure that it's a good argument, though.
Obviously, as you just stated essentially the opposite. :D
Yes. :D How else do you ensure an equality of opportunity across the states?
(Not that we do a particularly good job of that at the moment.)
We built this city on a Rock n' Roll.
I think that if everyone in America sends me 5 dollars I can think of a solution to the problem of inequality.
Or send Fahdizzle 5 bucks to ditch that goofy avatar.
I think that Maher is using "socialism" a little bit tongue and cheek. :rolleyes: He s using it the way that Fox News and hardcore Republicans use it to describe Obama's policies such as on healthcare. IF Obamacare is socialism, he argues, then is socialism such a bad thing?
5 dollars? Worthless. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Josephus on April 29, 2014, 08:59:53 PM
IF Obamacare is socialism, he argues, then is socialism such a bad thing?
:hmm:
Quote from: Caliga on April 29, 2014, 07:05:53 PM
'Socialsim'? It's like Tim posted this thread or something. :hmm:
Bill Maher's regular use of "socialism" is as an ironic response to the charges that anything short of Yi's complete abolition of government in order to create an unfettered dollarcracy is defined by its detractors as "socialism".
Quote from: Josephus on April 29, 2014, 08:59:53 PM
I think that Maher is using "socialism" a little bit tongue and cheek. :rolleyes: He s using it the way that Fox News and hardcore Republicans use it to describe Obama's policies such as on healthcare. IF Obamacare is socialism, he argues, then is socialism such a bad thing?
Doh, I wish I said that.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 29, 2014, 07:44:10 PM
I have argued before that social democracy can only be successful in small, homogenous countries, like Scandistan.
I've heard that from many a libertarian, but I don't why it can only work there.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 29, 2014, 07:44:10 PM
I have argued before that social democracy can only be successful in small, homogenous countries, like Scandistan.
Or Canada. Oh wait. :P
Quote from: PDH on April 29, 2014, 08:48:39 PM
I think that if everyone in America sends me 5 dollars I can think of a solution to the problem of inequality.
might be worth a try:
https://www.kickstarter.com/
:p
Quote from: Razgovory on April 29, 2014, 10:55:31 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 29, 2014, 07:44:10 PM
I have argued before that social democracy can only be successful in small, homogenous countries, like Scandistan.
I've heard that from many a libertarian, but I don't why it can only work there.
You guys.... The country you live in and what you believe has not had enough socialism still is the most advanced of the world. All the countries that have had the kind of socialism you desire have failed to have less problems than evilcapitalistUSA (except maybe Scandistan), and the countries that have had more socialism than that have failed utterly.
Yet you cannot stop the "we need more socialism" mantra. Lame.
Quote from: Tamas on April 30, 2014, 03:13:21 AM
All the countries that have had the kind of socialism you desire
Which countries are those? Certainly not Hungary.
"Except Scandinavia." AND CANADA.
And up until the past couple of years, Great Britain, until they decided to be even more retarded than we've been in the face of the Great Recession.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 30, 2014, 03:21:06 AM
Quote from: Tamas on April 30, 2014, 03:13:21 AM
All the countries that have had the kind of socialism you desire
Which countries are those? Certainly not Hungary.
western Europe. The post-soviet countries like Hungary et all are the "even more socialism" category.
Quote from: Ideologue on April 30, 2014, 03:24:16 AM
"Except Scandinavia." AND CANADA.
And up until the past couple of years, Great Britain, until they decided to be even more retarded than we've been in the face of the Great Recession.
Yeah, the UK is fucked. AFAIK they have one of the most positive outlook for constant growth in the EU. If only they could have went on the route of France's Hollande, creating more social problems with serious overspending than they had to solve.
I just think it'd be neat if our government was paying some of those brainy folks designing new bombs to be doctors instead. :sleep:
Quote from: Tamas on April 30, 2014, 03:57:05 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on April 30, 2014, 03:24:16 AM
"Except Scandinavia." AND CANADA.
And up until the past couple of years, Great Britain, until they decided to be even more retarded than we've been in the face of the Great Recession.
Yeah, the UK is fucked. AFAIK they have one of the most positive outlook for constant growth in the EU. If only they could have went on the route of France's Hollande, creating more social problems with serious overspending than they had to solve.
France, and until the Riksbank fucked up, Scandinavia, have been doing better than the UK (and the US). Certainly, there has been less misery.
:yeahright:
Even if you ARE right, what you are essentially saying is that France was better off until it had reserves to burn. Big deal. I could live like a king until my savings and credit card limit ran out. Would not make that the ideal long term lifestyle choice.
Socialism only failed in certrain countries because it was over centralised. It's that, not the socialism that's the problem. Devolution and redistribution is the answer. Even Friedman would agree.
Quote from: PJL on April 30, 2014, 04:27:48 AM
Socialism only failed in certrain countries because it was over centralised. It's that, not the socialism that's the problem. Devolution and redistribution is the answer. Even Friedman would agree.
Redistribution is an other word for robbery.
Quote from: Tamas on April 30, 2014, 04:26:46 AM
:yeahright:
Even if you ARE right, what you are essentially saying is that France was better off until it had reserves to burn. Big deal. I could live like a king until my savings and credit card limit ran out. Would not make that the ideal long term lifestyle choice.
I'm pretty sure the recession was a failure of aggregate demand, not the result of borrowing money (mostly from ourselves) and not paying it back (mostly to ourselves). The debt issue--in real economies, like America, the UK, and France--is not important in the short-term; its very prominence is the result of bought-and-paid-for merc economists who demand higher interest rates and dismantled tax regimes on behalf of their benefactors (well, merc economists and crazy people who think that recessions and depressions create value by teaching lessons, rather than hollowing out whole generations of humans).
Any sane economist realizes, and realized in 2008, that demand had to be restored. Safety nets are good way of keeping demand up and re-starting the economy.
Austerity has probably not just caused misery, it's reduced growth.
Quote from: Tamas on April 30, 2014, 04:41:19 AM
Quote from: PJL on April 30, 2014, 04:27:48 AM
Socialism only failed in certrain countries because it was over centralised. It's that, not the socialism that's the problem. Devolution and redistribution is the answer. Even Friedman would agree.
Redistribution is an other word for robbery.
Sure, but private property is an inherent right. Why? 'Cause.
Quote from: Ideologue on April 30, 2014, 04:48:08 AM
Quote from: Tamas on April 30, 2014, 04:26:46 AM
:yeahright:
Even if you ARE right, what you are essentially saying is that France was better off until it had reserves to burn. Big deal. I could live like a king until my savings and credit card limit ran out. Would not make that the ideal long term lifestyle choice.
I'm pretty sure the recession was a failure of aggregate demand, not the result of borrowing money (mostly from ourselves) and not paying it back (mostly to ourselves). The debt issue--in real economies, like America, the UK, and France--is not important in the short-term; its very prominence is the result of bought-and-paid-for merc economists who demand higher interest rates and dismantled tax regimes on behalf of their benefactors (well, merc economists and crazy people who think that recessions and depressions create value by teaching lessons, rather than hollowing out whole generations of humans).
Any sane economist realizes, and realized in 2008, that demand had to be restored. Safety nets are good way of keeping demand up and re-starting the economy.
Austerity has probably not just caused misery, it's reduced growth.
As I said, France has been going with what you advocate. Case closed.
Quote from: Ideologue on April 30, 2014, 04:49:26 AM
Quote from: Tamas on April 30, 2014, 04:41:19 AM
Quote from: PJL on April 30, 2014, 04:27:48 AM
Socialism only failed in certrain countries because it was over centralised. It's that, not the socialism that's the problem. Devolution and redistribution is the answer. Even Friedman would agree.
Redistribution is an other word for robbery.
Sure, but private property is an inherent right. Why? 'Cause.
Why? Because that is what makes it worthwile for humans to invest energy into bettering the lot of themselves and by turn others. Because at the end of the day, everything ends up as somebody's de facto property. The only difference is that in some unfortunate cultures these owners are called kings, sultans, presidents, or premieres.
And the degree your livelihood and existence depends on the goodwill and handouts of others (private or state), is also the degree your freedom is restricted.
:lol:
If your housing is controlled by the state, and your employment is controlled by the state (like it was the case in the eastern bloc), then YOU are controlled by the state, because if the state wants to destroy your life, they can. Happened to a lot of opposition figures in Hungary for example.
Obviously there are all kinds of degrees of mid-ways between that and full-fledged laisez faire, but I do believe the basic principle is there.
Just like living in a society is a compromise between personal freedom and safety. It is a well worth compromise to a (considerably big) degree, but still the compromise is there.
If my employment is controlled by a law firm instead, they can't destroy my life? :unsure:
Quote from: Ideologue on April 30, 2014, 05:45:37 AM
If my employment is controlled by a law firm instead, they can't destroy my life? :unsure:
If your employment really
were controlled by a law firm, that would be slavery. Slavery is illegal.
C'mon, man. You are better than silly shit like this. Get back on your game!
So, High Taxes = Socialism?
Quote from: Tamas on April 30, 2014, 03:13:21 AM
You guys.... The country you live in and what you believe has not had enough socialism still is the most advanced of the world. All the countries that have had the kind of socialism you desire have failed to have less problems than evilcapitalistUSA (except maybe Scandistan), and the countries that have had more socialism than that have failed utterly.
Yet you cannot stop the "we need more socialism" mantra. Lame.
For proper "more socialism is needed in the US" rhetoric, you obviously need to look at the "inequality-adjusted human development index" and in that, you have fifteen countries ahead of the United States, i.e. "more advanced" and all of them are probably more "socialist". Basically most of Northern and Central Europe plus Australia and Canada. As Japan and New Zealand aren't covered by the index it might be even more ahead of the US.
Quote from: grumbler on April 30, 2014, 06:19:07 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on April 30, 2014, 05:45:37 AM
If my employment is controlled by a law firm instead, they can't destroy my life? :unsure:
If your employment really were controlled by a law firm
Certainly seems to be the case given what happens to my resumes otherwise. :(
Quote from: Ideologue on April 30, 2014, 06:45:32 AM
Quote from: grumbler on April 30, 2014, 06:19:07 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on April 30, 2014, 05:45:37 AM
If my employment is controlled by a law firm instead, they can't destroy my life? :unsure:
If your employment really were controlled by a law firm
Certainly seems to be the case given what happens to my resumes otherwise. :(
Ok I will bite. If your law firm fires you, they cannot actually deny your right to be considered to other positions across the job market. Even the state can only limit your options by giving you a criminal record.
Whereas if the state controls the economy across the board, you CAN be denied of employment everywhere except where the state wants to put you in. As I said, this happened to countless educated people in communism. If they talked out of the line, they soon found themselves working at assembly lines.
Quote from: Zanza on April 30, 2014, 06:42:32 AM
For proper "more socialism is needed in the US" rhetoric, you obviously need to look at the "inequality-adjusted human development index" and in that, you have fifteen countries ahead of the United States, i.e. "more advanced" and all of them are probably more "socialist". Basically most of Northern and Central Europe plus Australia and Canada. As Japan and New Zealand aren't covered by the index it might be even more ahead of the US.
So "more socialist" = "more advanced" now? Okay.
By raw HDI, the US is 3rd in the world (virtually tied for second with Australia). If you assign an arbitrary 12.4% loss to that actual figure, the US drops to 16th. This doesn't actually reduce US lifespans; people still live just as long as they did when the US was #3. It just reduces the score. Why reduce the score? Because #3 in the world is obviously wrong, no matter what the facts are.
Quote from: Tamas on April 30, 2014, 07:18:09 AM
Ok I will bite. If your law firm fires you, they cannot actually deny your right to be considered to other positions across the job market. Even the state can only limit your options by giving you a criminal record.
Whereas if the state controls the economy across the board, you CAN be denied of employment everywhere except where the state wants to put you in. As I said, this happened to countless educated people in communism. If they talked out of the line, they soon found themselves working at assembly lines.
If the state wants to control you like that, it can do it whether or not the state is running all the corporations(which is something few here wish for anyway).
Quote from: Zanza on April 30, 2014, 06:42:32 AM
Quote from: Tamas on April 30, 2014, 03:13:21 AM
You guys.... The country you live in and what you believe has not had enough socialism still is the most advanced of the world. All the countries that have had the kind of socialism you desire have failed to have less problems than evilcapitalistUSA (except maybe Scandistan), and the countries that have had more socialism than that have failed utterly.
Yet you cannot stop the "we need more socialism" mantra. Lame.
For proper "more socialism is needed in the US" rhetoric, you obviously need to look at the "inequality-adjusted human development index" and in that, you have fifteen countries ahead of the United States, i.e. "more advanced" and all of them are probably more "socialist". Basically most of Northern and Central Europe plus Australia and Canada. As Japan and New Zealand aren't covered by the index it might be even more ahead of the US.
I would need to read up on the inequality indexes because I don't really know much about how they calculated.
But I guess it must be true that it is better to be dirt poor in a welfare state than in a non-welfare one. Unfortunately, the number of content poor people is not an indicator of a country's general nicety when it comes to advances and opportunity for individuals.
I mean, surely there must be a reason why almost all innovative big shot companies are in the US, for example.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 30, 2014, 07:24:00 AM
Quote from: Tamas on April 30, 2014, 07:18:09 AM
Ok I will bite. If your law firm fires you, they cannot actually deny your right to be considered to other positions across the job market. Even the state can only limit your options by giving you a criminal record.
Whereas if the state controls the economy across the board, you CAN be denied of employment everywhere except where the state wants to put you in. As I said, this happened to countless educated people in communism. If they talked out of the line, they soon found themselves working at assembly lines.
If the state wants to control you like that, it can do it whether or not the state is running all the corporations(which is something few here wish for anyway).
If the state excercises such level of control than it does control the economy though, right?
And we are really debating levels of state involvement I think. I always find it funny that the US is portrayed as free market haven when the single biggest thing ever moving stock markets are the Fed decisions.
Quote from: Tamas on April 30, 2014, 07:27:16 AM
And we are really debating levels of state involvement I think. I always find it funny that the US is portrayed as free market haven when the single biggest thing ever moving stock markets are the Fed decisions.
Are you quite sure that this is true? What Fed decision was made between 2011 and 2013 that caused stocks to rise 50%, and why did they change that decision in 2014?
Quote from: grumbler on April 30, 2014, 08:19:22 AM
Quote from: Tamas on April 30, 2014, 07:27:16 AM
And we are really debating levels of state involvement I think. I always find it funny that the US is portrayed as free market haven when the single biggest thing ever moving stock markets are the Fed decisions.
Are you quite sure that this is true? What Fed decision was made between 2011 and 2013 that caused stocks to rise 50%, and why did they change that decision in 2014?
Is this irony?
Quote from: Tamas on April 30, 2014, 08:29:48 AM
Is this irony?
Nope. Still wrinkly, like your statement.
Quote from: grumbler on April 30, 2014, 08:39:16 AM
Quote from: Tamas on April 30, 2014, 08:29:48 AM
Is this irony?
Nope. Still wrinkly, like your statement.
I thought you were being ironic/sarcastic about Quantitive Easing. Which have driven at least a good portion of that growth and its cancellation has been the scare-talk of the year.
Quote from: Tamas on April 30, 2014, 07:18:09 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on April 30, 2014, 06:45:32 AM
Quote from: grumbler on April 30, 2014, 06:19:07 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on April 30, 2014, 05:45:37 AM
If my employment is controlled by a law firm instead, they can't destroy my life? :unsure:
If your employment really were controlled by a law firm
Certainly seems to be the case given what happens to my resumes otherwise. :(
Ok I will bite. If your law firm fires you, they cannot actually deny your right to be considered to other positions across the job market. Even the state can only limit your options by giving you a criminal record.
Whereas if the state controls the economy across the board, you CAN be denied of employment everywhere except where the state wants to put you in. As I said, this happened to countless educated people in communism. If they talked out of the line, they soon found themselves working at assembly lines.
In America, if you're laid off for no reason, you soon find yourself not working and in the unemployment line. Advantage: communism.
Oh, we have reasons to lay people off.
Shareholder Value :yeah:
Quote from: Ideologue on April 30, 2014, 09:30:20 AM
Quote from: Tamas on April 30, 2014, 07:18:09 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on April 30, 2014, 06:45:32 AM
Quote from: grumbler on April 30, 2014, 06:19:07 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on April 30, 2014, 05:45:37 AM
If my employment is controlled by a law firm instead, they can't destroy my life? :unsure:
If your employment really were controlled by a law firm
Certainly seems to be the case given what happens to my resumes otherwise. :(
Ok I will bite. If your law firm fires you, they cannot actually deny your right to be considered to other positions across the job market. Even the state can only limit your options by giving you a criminal record.
Whereas if the state controls the economy across the board, you CAN be denied of employment everywhere except where the state wants to put you in. As I said, this happened to countless educated people in communism. If they talked out of the line, they soon found themselves working at assembly lines.
In America, if you're laid off for no reason, you soon find yourself not working and in the unemployment line. Advantage: communism.
Yes, mandatory employment no matter what worked wonders with the economies of the eastern bloc. Absolutely no working morale, abysmal performance, rampant workplace thievery are just a few among the benefits society enjoyed due to 0% unemployment.
Quote from: Tamas on April 30, 2014, 08:41:54 AM
I thought you were being ironic/sarcastic about Quantitive Easing. Which have driven at least a good portion of that growth and its cancellation has been the scare-talk of the year.
The Fed has been tapering since December. The S&P 500 has responded by going up.
Quote from: Tamas on April 30, 2014, 07:25:24 AM
I would need to read up on the inequality indexes because I don't really know much about how they calculated.
Doesn't really matter. You just need to pick a statistic that supports your argument. So if I was arguing in favor of more socialist policies in the US, that's the index I would use. I am sure that no matter what criteria go into such an index, they will always be subjective as there is no obvious objective way to measure "human development".
QuoteBut I guess it must be true that it is better to be dirt poor in a welfare state than in a non-welfare one. Unfortunately, the number of content poor people is not an indicator of a country's general nicety when it comes to advances and opportunity for individuals.
I mean, surely there must be a reason why almost all innovative big shot companies are in the US, for example.
As far as I can tell, those indexes typically measure averages or medians or so, not extremes. Would be interesting to see if there is an index that measures chances for extreme positions. It's just a guess based on e.g. the way incomes are distributed or what you say about innovation and other anecdotal evidence, but I could imagine that the US is still by far the country that offers the biggest chances when you are among the elite in something, be it science, finance, technology etc.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 30, 2014, 10:00:25 AM
Quote from: Tamas on April 30, 2014, 08:41:54 AM
I thought you were being ironic/sarcastic about Quantitive Easing. Which have driven at least a good portion of that growth and its cancellation has been the scare-talk of the year.
The Fed has been tapering since December. The S&P 500 has responded by going up.
Are you arguing that the QE was not one of the major factors behind the stock market upward move since 2009? I will believe you if you say so, but I thought that it being so was an accepted conclusion.
My opinion is that the Fed's influence on asset prices, while potentially significant, is mostly negative. If the Fed screws up by being overly restrictive that will hit stock prices. If it screws up by letting inflation get out of control that will also hit stocks (differentially). So yes QE had an effect - the effect was that by pursuing the correct policy, the Fed faciliated recovery and allowed stock prices to rise from the fire sale prices of 2009.
Quote from: Tamas on April 30, 2014, 08:41:54 AM
I thought you were being ironic/sarcastic about Quantitive Easing. Which have driven at least a good portion of that growth and its cancellation has been the scare-talk of the year.
Quantitative easing started in 2008. Sunspots have a better correlation to stock market performance than QE does.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 30, 2014, 10:59:17 AM
My opinion is that the Fed's influence on asset prices, while potentially significant, is mostly negative. If the Fed screws up by being overly restrictive that will hit stock prices. If it screws up by letting inflation get out of control that will also hit stocks (differentially). So yes QE had an effect - the effect was that by pursuing the correct policy, the Fed faciliated recovery and allowed stock prices to rise from the fire sale prices of 2009.
So "assets" granted by QE were not used then?
Quote from: Tamas on April 30, 2014, 03:13:21 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 29, 2014, 10:55:31 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 29, 2014, 07:44:10 PM
I have argued before that social democracy can only be successful in small, homogenous countries, like Scandistan.
I've heard that from many a libertarian, but I don't why it can only work there.
You guys.... The country you live in and what you believe has not had enough socialism still is the most advanced of the world. All the countries that have had the kind of socialism you desire have failed to have less problems than evilcapitalistUSA (except maybe Scandistan), and the countries that have had more socialism than that have failed utterly.
Yet you cannot stop the "we need more socialism" mantra. Lame.
This in no way answers my question.
Quote from: Tamas on April 30, 2014, 07:18:09 AM
Ok I will bite. If your law firm fires you, they cannot actually deny your right to be considered to other positions across the job market. Even the state can only limit your options by giving you a criminal record.
Whereas if the state controls the economy across the board, you CAN be denied of employment everywhere except where the state wants to put you in. As I said, this happened to countless educated people in communism. If they talked out of the line, they soon found themselves working at assembly lines.
I can certainly think of a way to be denied positions without state intervention.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FDBk3QSX.jpg&hash=54158aa783b6448d256803138c7602a1d3803c96)
Quote from: Tamas on April 30, 2014, 03:13:21 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 29, 2014, 10:55:31 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 29, 2014, 07:44:10 PM
I have argued before that social democracy can only be successful in small, homogenous countries, like Scandistan.
I've heard that from many a libertarian, but I don't why it can only work there.
You guys.... The country you live in and what you believe has not had enough socialism still is the most advanced of the world. All the countries that have had the kind of socialism you desire have failed to have less problems than evilcapitalistUSA (except maybe Scandistan), and the countries that have had more socialism than that have failed utterly.
It depends on what one means by "socialism". If you mean state control of the means of production then I think you are correct. If you mean social democracy, which is the meaning given to the term in the OP, then I disagree with you. Although Canada has its share of problems I would not want to trade them for those experienced by the US.
Quote from: Tamas on April 30, 2014, 04:57:36 AM
Why? Because that is what makes it worthwile for humans to invest energy into bettering the lot of themselves and by turn others. Because at the end of the day, everything ends up as somebody's de facto property. The only difference is that in some unfortunate cultures these owners are called kings, sultans, presidents, or premieres.
And the degree your livelihood and existence depends on the goodwill and handouts of others (private or state), is also the degree your freedom is restricted.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FxnViL71.jpg&hash=f0e886c3085c18fe7a260b6941b465325ce2912e)
I'm sure glad I'm not the defacto property of the government!
You know if the best counterargument you can give is to pretend I was advocating slavery, then it just pretty much proves you have no counterargument to give.
Socialism is bad. The retards found out that they are way more than 50% of the population so they started raping the commons and the non-retards.
Quote from: Tamas on April 30, 2014, 12:57:38 PM
You know if the best counterargument you can give is to pretend I was advocating slavery, then it just pretty much proves you have no counterargument to give.
That may be true, but plenty of other people in this thread have provided cogent and convincing counter arguments :)
Quote from: Tamas on April 30, 2014, 12:57:38 PM
You know if the best counterargument you can give is to pretend I was advocating slavery, then it just pretty much proves you have no counterargument to give.
The first picture was from 1939, long after slavery. I used the black sharecroppers to show people denied good jobs without any sort of state intervention. They committed no crimes, and were not being held back by the state, but people like that could not get good paying jobs or live where they wanted to. Why?
The second one is a person who is de facto owned by someone which is what you were talking about I believe. I used it as an example of someone who is actually de facto owned by another (and is de jure owned by someone) as opposed to someone who Tamas defacto owned by someone (who is not really owned by someone else), like someone living in modern Belgium.
But since you brought up Slavery what is the non-statist way of getting rid of (actual) slavery?
Sigh.
Quote from: Jacob on April 30, 2014, 01:01:44 PM
Quote from: Tamas on April 30, 2014, 12:57:38 PM
You know if the best counterargument you can give is to pretend I was advocating slavery, then it just pretty much proves you have no counterargument to give.
That may be true, but plenty of other people in this thread have provided cogent and convincing counter arguments :)
Fortunately it's not true. So we don't have to worry about that.
Quote from: The Brain on April 30, 2014, 01:01:20 PM
Socialism is bad. The retards found out that they are way more than 50% of the population so they started raping the commons and the non-retards.
If you lived in Sweden you would see that Socialism works.
Quote from: The Brain on April 30, 2014, 01:01:20 PM
Socialism is bad. The retards found out that they are way more than 50% of the population so they started raping the commons and the non-retards.
I am sorry Brain but we come from two countries which really put an effort into building full-fledged welfare states. We cannot possibly compare our low knowledge of socialism to people in less socialist countries.
The Canadians seem to believe they are socialists now despite their country being run by right wing warriors like Stephen Harper.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 30, 2014, 12:29:51 PM
I can certainly think of a way to be denied positions without state intervention.
The state had a big role to play in both slavery and the Jim Crow system.
Socialism IS the middle class.
Quote from: Grey Fox on April 30, 2014, 01:51:32 PM
Socialism IS the middle class.
Socialism IS the bourgeoisie? Mind blown.
Quote from: Valmy on April 30, 2014, 01:46:51 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 30, 2014, 12:29:51 PM
I can certainly think of a way to be denied positions without state intervention.
The state had a big role to play in both slavery and the Jim Crow system.
The state played the same role in slavery as it plays with any property ownership. Same as owning a cow. Jim Crow was formalized in state laws, but that was not necessary, nor did it originate from state law. Jim Crow has it's origins in public minded individuals with white sheets. In the North were there weren't as many laws restricting blacks, blacks still were at the very bottom of the totem pole and stayed there. Despite the lack of state intervention job positions were denied to them.
And I remind you, Tamas opened the can of worms of people owning other people. Of course, he painted himself into a corner with that.
:huh:
For starters, how on earth can you be middle class if removal of welfare benefits would push you back to poverty? Then you are just poor enjoying the fruits of others' labor.
Quote from: Tamas on April 30, 2014, 02:52:11 PM
:huh:
QuoteWhy? Because that is what makes it worthwile for humans to invest energy into bettering the lot of themselves and by turn others. Because at the end of the day, everything ends up as somebody's de facto property. The only difference is that in some unfortunate cultures these owners are called kings, sultans, presidents, or premieres.
And the degree your livelihood and existence depends on the goodwill and handouts of others (private or state), is also the degree your freedom is restricted.
In our unfortunate culture these owners were called "citizens", and they were more tyrannical then most kings, sultans, presidents, or premieres. The Hungarians under Soviet rule were infinitely more free then then chattel slaves. The tyranny of these "citizens" was only stopped by massive state action.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 30, 2014, 12:29:51 PMThe state played the same role in slavery as it plays with any property ownership. Same as owning a cow.
Laws passed by the colonial governments defined the institution and defined the terms of servitude and who was a slave and who wasn't. I don't think governments can pass laws declaring people cows...well ok I guess they could...
But the legal structures of the government were required to maintain the slave society. And owning slaves and owning cows was not even considered the same at the time.
QuoteJim Crow was formalized in state laws, but that was not necessary, nor did it originate from state law. Jim Crow has it's origins in public minded individuals with white sheets.
The Black Codes predated the guys with the white sheets. But in any case the government was complicit with the dudes in the white sheets, the white sheet guys could not have done what they did without that. Heck the Democratic Party was so beholden to the white sheet people it almost created a rift in the party. So I say it is total nonsense that it was unnecessary. If the government had merely been neutral Jim Crow could not have worked, it was essential.
QuoteIn the North were there weren't as many laws restricting blacks, blacks still were at the very bottom of the totem pole and stayed there. Despite the lack of state intervention job positions were denied to them.
Hey big business did not bring those people north to not act as a cheap labor source. But I honestly do not know how things worked up in yankee lands as well.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 30, 2014, 03:02:19 PM
In our unfortunate culture these owners were called "citizens", and they were more tyrannical then most kings, sultans, presidents, or premieres. The Hungarians under Soviet rule were infinitely more free then then chattel slaves. The tyranny of these "citizens" was only stopped by massive state action.
Several of these "citizens" took action to free their slaves and the government stepped in to pass laws to keep them from doing so (or rather make it unfeasible). Because the state was about preserving the slave system. You cannot have it both ways here Raz. You cannot hold the private sector entirely responsible for slavery and give the state all the credit for ending it. Both had massive roles in both.
Jesus H Christ, Raz.
Quote from: Tamas on April 30, 2014, 03:13:36 PM
Jesus H Christ, Raz.
I WARNED you, but did you listen to me? Oh, no, you KNEW, didn't you? Oh, it's just a harmless little RAZ isn't it?"
Quote from: grumbler on April 30, 2014, 03:19:17 PM
Quote from: Tamas on April 30, 2014, 03:13:36 PM
Jesus H Christ, Raz.
I WARNED you, but did you listen to me? Oh, no, you KNEW, didn't you? Oh, it's just a harmless little RAZ isn't it?"
:lol: Nice
Quote from: Valmy on April 30, 2014, 03:07:59 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 30, 2014, 12:29:51 PMThe state played the same role in slavery as it plays with any property ownership. Same as owning a cow.
Laws passed by the colonial governments defined the institution and defined the terms of servitude and who was a slave and who wasn't. I don't think governments can pass laws declaring people cows...well ok I guess they could...
But the legal structures of the government were required to maintain the slave society. And owning slaves and owning cows was not even considered the same at the time.
QuoteJim Crow was formalized in state laws, but that was not necessary, nor did it originate from state law. Jim Crow has it's origins in public minded individuals with white sheets.
The Black Codes predated the guys with the white sheets. But in any case the government was complicit with the dudes in the white sheets, the white sheet guys could not have done what they did without that. Heck the Democratic Party was so beholden to the white sheet people it almost created a rift in the party. So I say it is total nonsense that it was unnecessary. If the government had merely been neutral Jim Crow could not have worked, it was essential.
QuoteIn the North were there weren't as many laws restricting blacks, blacks still were at the very bottom of the totem pole and stayed there. Despite the lack of state intervention job positions were denied to them.
Hey big business did not bring those people north to not act as a cheap labor source. But I honestly do not know how things worked up in yankee lands as well.
Bullshit. Slavery predates all governments. Laws in the US only codified existing practices. The ownership of a person is still a property right, and unless you believe that property rights come from governments, slavery does not come from governments either. I also call bullshit on the Jim crow, the government tried to suppress those plucky individualists in white sheets but failed. Afterword local governments codified what had already been accomplished, the pacification of the black populace. Hurray for local control!
Quote from: Valmy on April 30, 2014, 03:08:51 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 30, 2014, 03:02:19 PM
In our unfortunate culture these owners were called "citizens", and they were more tyrannical then most kings, sultans, presidents, or premieres. The Hungarians under Soviet rule were infinitely more free then then chattel slaves. The tyranny of these "citizens" was only stopped by massive state action.
Several of these "citizens" took action to free their slaves and the government stepped in to pass laws to keep them from doing so (or rather make it unfeasible). Because the state was about preserving the slave system. You cannot have it both ways here Raz. You cannot hold the private sector entirely responsible for slavery and give the state all the credit for ending it. Both had massive roles in both.
Okay, give me one state that eradicated slavery entirely by the volition of private citizens.
Quote from: Valmy on April 30, 2014, 03:27:43 PM
Quote from: grumbler on April 30, 2014, 03:19:17 PM
Quote from: Tamas on April 30, 2014, 03:13:36 PM
Jesus H Christ, Raz.
I WARNED you, but did you listen to me? Oh, no, you KNEW, didn't you? Oh, it's just a harmless little RAZ isn't it?"
:lol: Nice
On the other hand, maybe you are just a piece of shit like Grumbler and should just go fuck yourself.
WHY DOES LACK OF COMPLETE STATE CONTROL OF THE ECONOMY EQUALS LEGALISATION OF SLAVERY YOU TWAT?!
:lol:
Quote from: Razgovory on April 30, 2014, 03:35:16 PM
Bullshit. Slavery predates all governments.
Prehistoric things are a bit outside of my area of knowledge. I defer this question of grumbler.
QuoteLaws in the US only codified existing practices.
Um. They were practices somewhere but they were not standardized. There was certainly no universal idea that slavery was for life, was inherited through the mother only, and had a racial component. Those laws were passed because they were needed in order for a slave economy and society to function. Before it was pretty chaotic.
QuoteThe ownership of a person is still a property right, and unless you believe that property rights come from governments, slavery does not come from governments either.
I do not think ownership of a person is a property right.
QuoteI also call bullshit on the Jim crow, the government tried to suppress those plucky individualists in white sheets but failed.
A government tried to do so sure, but things were just a little unusual in the ten years after the Civil War. It stopped but not because it failed to suppress anybody. It was a policy decision based on political calculations.
QuoteAfterword local governments codified what had already been accomplished, the pacification of the black populace. Hurray for local control!
Untrue it took decades of work by the state governments for Jim Crow to be fully established. I thought local governments were still governments.
Quote from: Valmy on April 30, 2014, 01:45:12 PM
The Canadians seem to believe they are socialists now despite their country being run by right wing warriors like Stephen Harper.
No. [sigh] we're not. Not yet.
Quote from: Tamas on April 30, 2014, 02:53:28 PM
For starters, how on earth can you be middle class if removal of welfare benefits would push you back to poverty? Then you are just poor enjoying the fruits of others' labor.
You're making no sense, Razmas.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 30, 2014, 03:37:09 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 30, 2014, 03:08:51 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 30, 2014, 03:02:19 PM
In our unfortunate culture these owners were called "citizens", and they were more tyrannical then most kings, sultans, presidents, or premieres. The Hungarians under Soviet rule were infinitely more free then then chattel slaves. The tyranny of these "citizens" was only stopped by massive state action.
Several of these "citizens" took action to free their slaves and the government stepped in to pass laws to keep them from doing so (or rather make it unfeasible). Because the state was about preserving the slave system. You cannot have it both ways here Raz. You cannot hold the private sector entirely responsible for slavery and give the state all the credit for ending it. Both had massive roles in both.
Okay, give me one state that eradicated slavery entirely by the volition of private citizens.
United Kingdom
Quote from: Barrister on April 30, 2014, 04:55:02 PM
United Kingdom
Pretty sure the government was involved in that.
You don't get to use "it's a democratic government so it's the citizens" when the argument is about whether slavery can be abolished without resorting to government action.
Quote from: Tamas on April 30, 2014, 03:39:23 PM
WHY DOES LACK OF COMPLETE STATE CONTROL OF THE ECONOMY EQUALS LEGALISATION OF SLAVERY YOU TWAT?!
There no requirement for "complete state control", slavery is a state of nature, just like owning other things. That the strong can make the weak do what they want is ancient. It predates all governments, just as owning anything else does. It is a property right, a negative right and a natural right (not that not all natural rights are good). It requires no government. The idea that you can't own other human beings is a new concept. It has only ended by goverment actions.
Now true, government has gotten involved in slavery, codifying what can and can't be done. This is not dissimilar to other government intrusion in other parts of the economy. For instance, workers rights, cruelty to animals, environmental laws etc. Governments did not create the right to own animals or employ people. It regulates existing rights.
Slavery is one of the major flaws in libertarian ideology. A libertarian type state with limited government has an extremely difficult time stopping existing slavery, since it requires a vast government effort, an anathema to the libertarian. Second, slavery can theoretically coexist with libertarian ideas, if slavery is voluntary. Let's take the mantra "It's my body, I can do with it what I want". Could I sell that body into slavery? I don't see any reason why not. Pretend that you have no money but you need a loan, instead of putting your home or car as collateral, could you not put yourself as collateral? If the loan is not repaid, could you be taken as a slave, perhaps permanently perhaps temporarily. The only need of government in this situation is to make sure contracts are upheld, which most libertarians believe is important. It doesn't matter what the contract actually is, so long as both sides agree to it without. I'm not alone in this idea, some prominent libertarians have expressed the same idea.
Quote from: Barrister on April 30, 2014, 04:55:02 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 30, 2014, 03:37:09 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 30, 2014, 03:08:51 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 30, 2014, 03:02:19 PM
In our unfortunate culture these owners were called "citizens", and they were more tyrannical then most kings, sultans, presidents, or premieres. The Hungarians under Soviet rule were infinitely more free then then chattel slaves. The tyranny of these "citizens" was only stopped by massive state action.
Several of these "citizens" took action to free their slaves and the government stepped in to pass laws to keep them from doing so (or rather make it unfeasible). Because the state was about preserving the slave system. You cannot have it both ways here Raz. You cannot hold the private sector entirely responsible for slavery and give the state all the credit for ending it. Both had massive roles in both.
Okay, give me one state that eradicated slavery entirely by the volition of private citizens.
United Kingdom
:hmm:
Right. Not by law then?
Apropos of nothing, I just recently learned that Delaware was a slave state.
Slavery was neither established nor abolished by governments. It was made legal or illegal by governments. It existed de facto before governments, and exists de facto today.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 30, 2014, 06:15:41 PM
Apropos of nothing, I just recently learned that Delaware was a slave state.
Duh. Biden informed everyone about that a long time ago.
:weep:
Alright, but apart from interstate highway system, schools, atom bombs, and industrial infrastructure what has socialism ever done for us?
Delaware also used a whipping post for penal sanctions as late as the 1950s.
Quote from: citizen k on April 30, 2014, 06:57:53 PM
Alright, but apart from interstate highway system, schools, atom bombs, and industrial infrastructure what has socialism ever done for us?
Brought peace?
It's kind of wack to me that "socialism" seems to have become a synonym for "basic government responsibilities" in this discussion.
I think most of us are just goofing on Ide's goofiness.
Quote from: grumbler on April 30, 2014, 07:21:06 PM
Quote from: citizen k on April 30, 2014, 06:57:53 PM
Alright, but apart from interstate highway system, schools, atom bombs, and industrial infrastructure what has socialism ever done for us?
Brought peace?
Shut Up
Quote from: grumbler on April 30, 2014, 06:20:56 PM
Slavery was neither established nor abolished by governments. It was made legal or illegal by governments. It existed de facto before governments, and exists de facto today.
Yeah it seemed odd to ask for examples of abolishing something that never ceased to exist.
Quote from: Tamas on April 30, 2014, 03:39:23 PM
WHY DOES LACK OF COMPLETE STATE CONTROL OF THE ECONOMY EQUALS LEGALISATION OF SLAVERY YOU TWAT?!
I thought he was trying to caricature your own position as "taxation = slavery", but with Raz you never know.
Quote from: garbon on April 29, 2014, 08:59:59 PM
5 dollars? Worthless. :rolleyes:
If every American sent PDH $5 then he'd be a billionare. -_-
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 30, 2014, 06:15:41 PM
Apropos of nothing, I just recently learned that Delaware was a slave state.
I think they were all slave states at one time.
Quote from: Tamas on April 30, 2014, 02:52:23 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on April 30, 2014, 01:51:32 PM
Socialism IS the middle class.
:lol:
The middle classes are certainly the biggest recipients of socialism.
Congrats on 10000 posts, Tamas! :bowler:
Quote from: Norgy on May 01, 2014, 04:14:33 AM
Congrats on 10000 posts, Tamas! :bowler:
oh wow, thanks :D
:secret: He meant stop posting.
No, I didn't. :glare:
Quote from: Josephus on April 30, 2014, 04:11:26 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 30, 2014, 01:45:12 PM
The Canadians seem to believe they are socialists now despite their country being run by right wing warriors like Stephen Harper.
No. [sigh] we're not. Not yet.
:D
But it is cute that Americans think we think we are.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 05, 2014, 05:23:43 PM
Quote from: Josephus on April 30, 2014, 04:11:26 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 30, 2014, 01:45:12 PM
The Canadians seem to believe they are socialists now despite their country being run by right wing warriors like Stephen Harper.
No. [sigh] we're not. Not yet.
:D
But it is cute that Americans think we think we are.
Odd given that you were the one who inserted Canada into the discussion. :P
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 05, 2014, 05:23:43 PM
Quote from: Josephus on April 30, 2014, 04:11:26 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 30, 2014, 01:45:12 PM
The Canadians seem to believe they are socialists now despite their country being run by right wing warriors like Stephen Harper.
No. [sigh] we're not. Not yet.
:D
But it is cute that Americans think we think we are.
Huh? You were the guy saying that Social Democracy is at work in Canada.
I don't think social democracy=socialism
That is what a commie would say.
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 05, 2014, 06:57:05 PM
That is what a commie would say.
and this is what a commie would say say that people wouldn't think he was a commie. I'm on to you.
Quote from: HVC on May 05, 2014, 07:04:58 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 05, 2014, 06:57:05 PM
That is what a commie would say.
and this is what a commie would say say that people wouldn't think he was a commie. I'm on to you.
:yeahright:
You can't be as fabulous as Ed and be a communist.
Quote from: garbon on May 05, 2014, 07:06:04 PM
Quote from: HVC on May 05, 2014, 07:04:58 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 05, 2014, 06:57:05 PM
That is what a commie would say.
and this is what a commie would say say that people wouldn't think he was a commie. I'm on to you.
:yeahright:
You can't be as fabulous as Ed and be a communist.
au contraire
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fflavorwire.files.wordpress.com%2F2012%2F05%2Fstalin.jpg%3Fw%3D600%26amp%3Bh%3D747&hash=877b71486c5418908d3a52e46672b366c93d8ef3)
Tacky != fabulous
Quote from: garbon on May 05, 2014, 07:06:04 PM
Quote from: HVC on May 05, 2014, 07:04:58 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 05, 2014, 06:57:05 PM
That is what a commie would say.
and this is what a commie would say say that people wouldn't think he was a commie. I'm on to you.
:yeahright:
You can't be as fabulous as Ed and be a communist.
:hug:
Quote from: garbon on May 05, 2014, 07:06:04 PM
:yeahright:
You can't be as fabulous as Ed and be a communist.
What are the qualities that Ed holds that makes him fabulous in your view?
Quote from: Jacob on May 05, 2014, 07:18:54 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 05, 2014, 07:06:04 PM
:yeahright:
You can't be as fabulous as Ed and be a communist.
What are the qualities that Ed holds that makes him fabulous in your view?
We hold these truths to be self-Edvident; that all Eds are created fabulous; that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable sockpuppets; that among these socks are Yi, Liberty, and pursuit of Assbergers; that to secure these socks, mods are instituted among fora, deriving their just powers from the consent of the Admin.
Quote from: Jacob on May 05, 2014, 07:18:54 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 05, 2014, 07:06:04 PM
:yeahright:
You can't be as fabulous as Ed and be a communist.
What are the qualities that Ed holds that makes him fabulous in your view?
I could teach you but I have to charge.
Quote from: grumbler on May 05, 2014, 08:29:55 PM
We hold these truths to be self-Edvident; that all Eds are created fabulous; that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable sockpuppets; that among these socks are Yi, Liberty, and pursuit of Assbergers; that to secure these socks, mods are instituted among fora, deriving their just powers from the consent of the Admin.
I would LOL, but Ed is a fascist that has probably committed multiple NCAA violations as a sweater-vest monkey booster.
I ain't that rich, bro.
And I'd want a refund after those 2 godawful games.
Quote from: garbon on May 05, 2014, 09:09:59 PMI could teach you but I have to charge.
Nah it's alright. You and Ed just enjoy your milkshakes by yourselves in the yard.
Quote from: Jacob on May 05, 2014, 10:35:44 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 05, 2014, 09:09:59 PMI could teach you but I have to charge.
Nah it's alright. You and Ed just enjoy your milkshakes by yourselves in the yard.
The boys are in the yard so...:hmm:
Quote from: garbon on May 05, 2014, 05:45:35 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 05, 2014, 05:23:43 PM
Quote from: Josephus on April 30, 2014, 04:11:26 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 30, 2014, 01:45:12 PM
The Canadians seem to believe they are socialists now despite their country being run by right wing warriors like Stephen Harper.
No. [sigh] we're not. Not yet.
:D
But it is cute that Americans think we think we are.
Odd given that you were the one who inserted Canada into the discussion. :P
Why do you find it odd that I find it cute that Americans think that Canadians think Canada is socialist?
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 06, 2014, 11:06:21 AM
Why do you find it odd that I find it cute that Americans think that Canadians think Canada is socialist?
Oh for fucksake. I was having fun of your assertion that Canada is this Social Democracy akin to Skandiland. I do not think Canadians think Canada is socialist. Nor do I think that you think that I think that you think it is cute that I think that Canadians think Canada is socialist just to clear that up.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 06, 2014, 11:06:21 AM
Why do you find it odd that I find it cute that Americans think that Canadians think Canada is socialist?
He probably finds it odd because "Americans" is plural and he is a single case.
But it is cute that you don't know the difference between one American and "Americans."
Quote from: grumbler on May 06, 2014, 11:23:42 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 06, 2014, 11:06:21 AM
Why do you find it odd that I find it cute that Americans think that Canadians think Canada is socialist?
He probably finds it odd because "Americans" is plural and he is a single case.
But it is cute that you don't know the difference between one American and "Americans."
Based on your definition of cute I do not recommend a career in character design for childrens' animation for you.
Guys, stop it. You're all adorable :hug:
Quote from: Jacob on May 06, 2014, 11:40:02 AM
Based on your definition of cute I do not recommend a career in character design for childrens' animation for you.
Based on your recommendation, I don't recommend a career in career planning for you. :P
Quote from: Valmy on May 06, 2014, 11:09:30 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 06, 2014, 11:06:21 AM
Why do you find it odd that I find it cute that Americans think that Canadians think Canada is socialist?
Oh for fucksake.
Oh for fucksake Valmy, why must you always take things so personally.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 06, 2014, 11:59:00 AM
Quote from: Valmy on May 06, 2014, 11:09:30 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 06, 2014, 11:06:21 AM
Why do you find it odd that I find it cute that Americans think that Canadians think Canada is socialist?
Oh for fucksake.
Oh for fucksake Valmy, why must you always take things so personally.
I find it cute that you think I am taking this personally.
Quote from: grumbler on May 06, 2014, 11:23:42 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 06, 2014, 11:06:21 AM
Why do you find it odd that I find it cute that Americans think that Canadians think Canada is socialist?
He probably finds it odd because "Americans" is plural and he is a single case.
If find it cute that you think you know what Garbon thinks about why I find it cute that Americans think that Canadians think Canada is socialist.
Quote from: Valmy on May 06, 2014, 12:00:24 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 06, 2014, 11:59:00 AM
Quote from: Valmy on May 06, 2014, 11:09:30 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 06, 2014, 11:06:21 AM
Why do you find it odd that I find it cute that Americans think that Canadians think Canada is socialist?
Oh for fucksake.
Oh for fucksake Valmy, why must you always take things so personally.
I find it cute that you think I am taking this personally.
I fiind it cute that you find it cute.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 06, 2014, 12:03:32 PM
Quote from: grumbler on May 06, 2014, 11:23:42 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 06, 2014, 11:06:21 AM
Why do you find it odd that I find it cute that Americans think that Canadians think Canada is socialist?
He probably finds it odd because "Americans" is plural and he is a single case.
If find it cute that you think you know what Garbon thinks about why I find it cute that Americans think that Canadians think Canada is socialist.
Ain't none of this shit, cute.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 06, 2014, 12:04:19 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 06, 2014, 12:00:24 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 06, 2014, 11:59:00 AM
Quote from: Valmy on May 06, 2014, 11:09:30 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 06, 2014, 11:06:21 AM
Why do you find it odd that I find it cute that Americans think that Canadians think Canada is socialist?
Oh for fucksake.
Oh for fucksake Valmy, why must you always take things so personally.
I find it cute that you think I am taking this personally.
I fiind it cute that you find it cute.
Oh yeah? Well I find it cute that you find it cute that I find it cute.
Quote from: Valmy on May 06, 2014, 12:05:13 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 06, 2014, 12:04:19 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 06, 2014, 12:00:24 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 06, 2014, 11:59:00 AM
Quote from: Valmy on May 06, 2014, 11:09:30 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 06, 2014, 11:06:21 AM
Why do you find it odd that I find it cute that Americans think that Canadians think Canada is socialist?
Oh for fucksake.
Oh for fucksake Valmy, why must you always take things so personally.
I find it cute that you think I am taking this personally.
I fiind it cute that you find it cute.
Oh yeah? Well I find it cute that you find it cute that I find it cute.
Personally I find it cute that you find it cute that I find it cute that you find it cut.
Garbon is not cute at all it seems so I am not sure why Grumbler finds him cute.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 06, 2014, 12:10:21 PM
Garbon is not cute at all it seems so I am not sure why Grumbler finds him cute.
What? I'm hella cute.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 06, 2014, 12:10:21 PM
you find it cut.
Right. Watch out as Valmy might cut you soon.
Quote from: garbon on May 06, 2014, 12:12:13 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 06, 2014, 12:10:21 PM
you find it cut.
Right. Watch out as Valmy might cut you soon.
Cut? I'll show you cut. I'll cut your face!
Quote from: grumbler on May 06, 2014, 11:48:00 AM
Quote from: Jacob on May 06, 2014, 11:40:02 AM
Based on your definition of cute I do not recommend a career in character design for childrens' animation for you.
Based on your recommendation, I don't recommend a career in career planning for you. :P
Really? You think you'd be a good fit for character design? What are your art skills like?
Quote from: Jacob on May 06, 2014, 12:22:00 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 06, 2014, 12:18:26 PM
Quote from: Jacob on May 06, 2014, 12:14:16 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 06, 2014, 12:12:13 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 06, 2014, 12:10:21 PM
you find it cut.
Right. Watch out as Valmy might cut you soon.
Cute.
If you're into scars, I guess.
I don't rate Valmy's chances at cutting CC very highly given the distance.
If only there were a way to travel such a distance that didn't take months. :(
Quote from: garbon on May 06, 2014, 12:28:34 PM
If only there were a way to travel such a distance that didn't take months. :(
I meant that CC is taller than Valmy and has longer reach.
Quote from: Jacob on May 06, 2014, 12:30:33 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 06, 2014, 12:28:34 PM
If only there were a way to travel such a distance that didn't take months. :(
I meant that CC is taller than Valmy and has longer reach.
Judith and Holofernes :contract:
Anyway, height is an issue when you're moving in for a castration.
Quote from: Jacob on May 06, 2014, 12:13:26 PM
Really? You think you'd be a good fit for character design? What are your art skills like?
We are talking about your career now, not mine. :contract:
Besides, my art skills are plenty good enough for character design. It's not like that was a high-skill-low-cute job.
Quote from: garbon on May 06, 2014, 12:28:34 PM
Quote from: Jacob on May 06, 2014, 12:22:00 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 06, 2014, 12:18:26 PM
Quote from: Jacob on May 06, 2014, 12:14:16 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 06, 2014, 12:12:13 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 06, 2014, 12:10:21 PM
you find it cut.
Right. Watch out as Valmy might cut you soon.
Cute.
If you're into scars, I guess.
I don't rate Valmy's chances at cutting CC very highly given the distance.
If only there were a way to travel such a distance that didn't take months. :(
It takes years to make up that kind of distance - and most people never get there.
I am STILL here in Canada, I could just ask someone.
Quote from: Berkut on May 06, 2014, 06:06:07 PM
I am STILL here in Canada, I could just ask someone.
You must be a socialist.
Quote from: garbon on May 06, 2014, 12:36:13 PM
Judith and Holofernes :contract:
Anyway, height is an issue when you're moving in for a castration.
:lol:
Girl in the Starbucks I was just at has a cute ass.
Quote from: Josephus on May 07, 2014, 12:56:59 PM
Girl in the Starbucks I was just at has a cute ass.
Go on......
did you pinch it
did you cane it
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 07, 2014, 01:24:07 PM
did you pinch it
I wished to. But, alas, there are laws. Times like that, though, i get really libertarian.