Theories on how to efficiently run an economy

[CultureCitizen]

The greatest Depression in history was caused by the government, and the most recent recession was perpetuated by the government. Your argument is invalid.

this is true, at time of collapse Fan/Fred owned or guaranteed 75% of the Alt A and subprime mortgages. They were created to get people into homes the Republican free market said they could not afford. And that is only beginning to list lib govt interference with the free market.

Ed, you are famous for discussing topics without a Iota of evidence to support your words.
The bottom line here: there is significant evidence that capitalism is not stable by itself.
It can be argued that government intervention caused the crash ( predatory lending notwithstanding).
But then , what about the 2001 crisis ? Was that too fueled by government intervention?

9/11, and the Federal Reserve Fund caused too much money to be channeled into higher asset prices like real estate and stocks rather than the price of consumer goods. So, yeah, terrorism and the government.

There was a stock bubble for starters. Where was the self regulation there ?
Capitalism is inherently stable and self-regulating? Sure, it just needs a crash to get on track again.
That's like saying a blind man is on course. Sure he will correct course once he bumps into a wall ... or falls from a cliff.
Terrorists? Gimme a break , the stock had already crashed by 9/11/2001.

Even if that were the case, Socialism IS a crash. It destroys every Nation stupid enough to practice it. On the upside, at least you are a great example of what NOT to think.

Now who is showing up with a strawman argument?
I didn't advocate socialism. I simply said that capitalism is NOT stable.
My argument is that public regulations and institutions are needed to regulate capitalism, this is in contrast with your previous statements saying that all crisis are created by government regulations and interventions.

Sure, government can misallocate resources, but that doesn't mean the private sector and the market don't make the same mistakes.

Back to Milton, in the video he was actually calling for government intervention AFTER the fact ( the '29 crisis): print money to pump up the reserves.

That said, most countries are mixed economies, with the government performing some tasks and the corporations providing other goods and services.
Balancing what should be done by each sector is a delicate matter.

 

[phoenyx]

Yes, words certainly have definitions for a reason. What I'm trying to explain is that some words have more then one definition. It all depends on who's defining the word. Now, as a general rule, we can discount definitions of words that are only held by a few people. But the U.S.S.R. was hardly a few people, and frankly, most people considered the U.S.S.R. a communist country, not a socialist one, which is why the "Red Scare" focused on communism, not socialism:
Red Scare - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As I explained, there's no debate here, because they lacked every component of Communism.

By some definitions, perhaps, but clearly not by the definitions of most people who were around during the cold war between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. In Wikipedia's article on Communism, there's actually a point where it uses the terms communism and socialism as if they were 2 sides of the same coin:
**The 1917 October Revolution in Russia set the conditions for the rise to state power of Lenin's Bolsheviks, which was the first time any avowedly communist party reached that position. The revolution transferred power to the All-Russian Congress of Soviets,[15][16][17] in which the Bolsheviks had a majority. The event generated a great deal of practical and theoretical debate within the Marxist movement. Marx predicted that socialism and communism would be built upon foundations laid by the most advanced capitalist development. Russia, however, was one of the poorest countries in Europe with an enormous, largely illiterate peasantry and a minority of industrial workers. Marx had explicitly stated that Russia might be able to skip the stage of bourgeois rule.[18] Other socialists also believed that a Russian revolution could be the precursor of workers' revolutions in the West.

The moderate Mensheviks opposed Lenin's Bolshevik plan for socialist revolution before capitalism was more fully developed. The Bolsheviks' successful rise to power was based upon the slogans such as "Peace, bread, and land" which tapped the massive public desire for an end to Russian involvement in the First World War, the peasants' demand for land reform, and popular support for the Soviets.[19]

The Second International had dissolved in 1916 over national divisions, as the separate national parties that composed it did not maintain a unified front against the war, instead generally supporting their respective nation's role. Lenin thus created the Third International (Comintern) in 1919 and sent the Twenty-one Conditions, which included democratic centralism, to all European socialist parties willing to adhere. In France, for example, the majority of theFrench Section of the Workers' International (SFIO) party split in 1921 to form the French Section of the Communist International (SFIC). Henceforth, the term "Communism" was applied to the objective of the parties founded under the umbrella of the Comintern. Their program called for the uniting of workers of the world for revolution, which would be followed by the establishment of a dictatorship of the proletariat as well as the development of a socialist economy.**

Source: Communism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Technically they are two sides of the same coin, in the sense that neither one is a functioning system that can actually succeed. Also, the fact that you're acknowledging the Wikipedia article as a reliable source also means you acknowledge that their system lacked every component of Communism.

We've gone over that argument before- I mentioned that that was only the -ideal- of communism, and perhaps not even everyone's ideal. More importantly, both within and outside of the U.S.S.R., defined it as a communist country. I think Obi-Wan Kenobi from Star Wars said it best:
"what I told you was true... from a certain point of view."

Points of view don't deal in facts.

That actually depends upon what your point of view is based on...

The USSR factually was Socialist, and factually were not using a Communist system.

If we define communism the way you are defining it, certainly. If we define it the way millions of people defined it during the cold war, however, you would be mistaken.

 

[Rshermr]

Rshermr, I imagine you are making some good points- I certainly don't consider my own country Canada to be a 'crash', and I know that Pumpkin has stated that she detests socialists and brands a lot of people here (including myself) as such. But I don't think that using base insults against our opponents is going to help anything. I'm -really- averse to insulting young people, I certainly wouldn't want to be considered a bad influence on their language -.-

Our point of difference is that I do not consider

Ok, again that's fine, my real point is just that I think it would have been better if you'd avoided the base insults against Pumpkin. That's the type of thing that can get a conversational opponent to tune a person out, as a matter of fact, she's now said that she's blocked you.

Pumpkin's a troll.

Apparently not being a Socialist whackjob and understanding how the economy works makes someone a troll. Excuse me while I try to phase all knowledge of history and the economy out of my mind so I can become a Socialist, that way, I can be part of the cancer that destroys Nations.

Uh oh -.- Come on everyone, let's not give in to the dark side ;-). People have different points of views. Sometimes, debates can get heated, and people can forget that we're actually talking to fellow human beings, not "trolls" and "socialist whackjobs". Here's a nice little video, poking fun at Obi-Wan's "certain point of view" dialogue, but I think that contained therein is a very serious point:


Here's to hoping we can learn to accept the fact that just because we don't always agree with each other doesn't mean the other side deserves to be insulted. To quote Nietzsche:
"He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss also gazes into you."

Source: Friedrich Nietzsche - Wikiquote

Facts are facts. Opinions are simply that, and tell us only what someone SAYS they believe. Mostly in order to get people to support their agenda. And primarily, JUST TO WASTE MY TIME. If you want to play patty cake with some clown posting talking points and statements from partisan agendas, knock yourself out. I take proof only. Opinions are for people with too much time on their hands.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

this is true, at time of collapse Fan/Fred owned or guaranteed 75% of the Alt A and subprime mortgages. They were created to get people into homes the Republican free market said they could not afford. And that is only beginning to list lib govt interference with the free market.

Ed, you are famous for discussing topics without a Iota of evidence to support your words.
The bottom line here: there is significant evidence that capitalism is not stable by itself.
It can be argued that government intervention caused the crash ( predatory lending notwithstanding).
But then , what about the 2001 crisis ? Was that too fueled by government intervention?

9/11, and the Federal Reserve Fund caused too much money to be channeled into higher asset prices like real estate and stocks rather than the price of consumer goods. So, yeah, terrorism and the government.

There was a stock bubble for starters. Where was the self regulation there ?
Capitalism is inherently stable and self-regulating? Sure, it just needs a crash to get on track again.
That's like saying a blind man is on course. Sure he will correct course once he bumps into a wall ... or falls from a cliff.
Terrorists? Gimme a break , the stock had already crashed by 9/11/2001.

Even if that were the case, Socialism IS a crash. It destroys every Nation stupid enough to practice it. On the upside, at least you are a great example of what NOT to think.

Now who is showing up with a strawman argument?
I didn't advocate socialism. I simply said that capitalism is NOT stable.
My argument is that public regulations and institutions are needed to regulate capitalism, this is in contrast with your previous statements saying that all crisis are created by government regulations and interventions.

Sure, government can misallocate resources, but that doesn't mean the private sector and the market don't make the same mistakes.

Back to Milton, in the video he was actually calling for government intervention AFTER the fact ( the '29 crisis): print money to pump up the reserves.

That said, most countries are mixed economies, with the government performing some tasks and the corporations providing other goods and services.
Balancing what should be done by each sector is a delicate matter.

The problem the government caused in the first place by artificially inflating our currency. It sounded to me like he was saying that the government should have fixed what they broke in the first place.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

As I explained, there's no debate here, because they lacked every component of Communism.

By some definitions, perhaps, but clearly not by the definitions of most people who were around during the cold war between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. In Wikipedia's article on Communism, there's actually a point where it uses the terms communism and socialism as if they were 2 sides of the same coin:
**The 1917 October Revolution in Russia set the conditions for the rise to state power of Lenin's Bolsheviks, which was the first time any avowedly communist party reached that position. The revolution transferred power to the All-Russian Congress of Soviets,[15][16][17] in which the Bolsheviks had a majority. The event generated a great deal of practical and theoretical debate within the Marxist movement. Marx predicted that socialism and communism would be built upon foundations laid by the most advanced capitalist development. Russia, however, was one of the poorest countries in Europe with an enormous, largely illiterate peasantry and a minority of industrial workers. Marx had explicitly stated that Russia might be able to skip the stage of bourgeois rule.[18] Other socialists also believed that a Russian revolution could be the precursor of workers' revolutions in the West.

The moderate Mensheviks opposed Lenin's Bolshevik plan for socialist revolution before capitalism was more fully developed. The Bolsheviks' successful rise to power was based upon the slogans such as "Peace, bread, and land" which tapped the massive public desire for an end to Russian involvement in the First World War, the peasants' demand for land reform, and popular support for the Soviets.[19]

The Second International had dissolved in 1916 over national divisions, as the separate national parties that composed it did not maintain a unified front against the war, instead generally supporting their respective nation's role. Lenin thus created the Third International (Comintern) in 1919 and sent the Twenty-one Conditions, which included democratic centralism, to all European socialist parties willing to adhere. In France, for example, the majority of theFrench Section of the Workers' International (SFIO) party split in 1921 to form the French Section of the Communist International (SFIC). Henceforth, the term "Communism" was applied to the objective of the parties founded under the umbrella of the Comintern. Their program called for the uniting of workers of the world for revolution, which would be followed by the establishment of a dictatorship of the proletariat as well as the development of a socialist economy.**

Source: Communism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Technically they are two sides of the same coin, in the sense that neither one is a functioning system that can actually succeed. Also, the fact that you're acknowledging the Wikipedia article as a reliable source also means you acknowledge that their system lacked every component of Communism.

We've gone over that argument before- I mentioned that that was only the -ideal- of communism, and perhaps not even everyone's ideal. More importantly, both within and outside of the U.S.S.R., defined it as a communist country. I think Obi-Wan Kenobi from Star Wars said it best:
"what I told you was true... from a certain point of view."

Points of view don't deal in facts.

That actually depends upon what your point of view is based on...

The USSR factually was Socialist, and factually were not using a Communist system.

If we define communism the way you are defining it, certainly. If we define it the way millions of people defined it during the cold war, however, you would be mistaken.

The way I'm defining it being the actual given definition. They only called it Communism because it was the government the Communist party created.

 

[CultureCitizen]

The bottom line here: there is significant evidence that capitalism is not stable by itself.

so why not tell us what the evidence is?????????????????????????????????????????

Irving Fisher's debt deflation hypothesis and Minsky's Financial inestability hypothesis.

 

[phoenyx]

Our point of difference is that I do not consider

Ok, again that's fine, my real point is just that I think it would have been better if you'd avoided the base insults against Pumpkin. That's the type of thing that can get a conversational opponent to tune a person out, as a matter of fact, she's now said that she's blocked you.

Pumpkin's a troll.

Apparently not being a Socialist whackjob and understanding how the economy works makes someone a troll. Excuse me while I try to phase all knowledge of history and the economy out of my mind so I can become a Socialist, that way, I can be part of the cancer that destroys Nations.

Uh oh -.- Come on everyone, let's not give in to the dark side ;-). People have different points of views. Sometimes, debates can get heated, and people can forget that we're actually talking to fellow human beings, not "trolls" and "socialist whackjobs". Here's a nice little video, poking fun at Obi-Wan's "certain point of view" dialogue, but I think that contained therein is a very serious point:


Here's to hoping we can learn to accept the fact that just because we don't always agree with each other doesn't mean the other side deserves to be insulted. To quote Nietzsche:
"He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss also gazes into you."

Source: Friedrich Nietzsche - Wikiquote

Facts are facts.

Certainly .

Opinions are simply that...

Google defines an opinion as: "a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge." Clearly, it's better to rely on facts rather than opinions, not being bound by "fact or knowledge", could be false.

...Mostly in order to get people to support their agenda. And primarily, JUST TO WASTE MY TIME.

Well, you're certainly entitled to that point of view...

If you want to play patty cake...

Sometimes, I -wish- that was what we were playing a game with a few less barbs anyway -.- Honestly, sometimes I wish I could talk more about animes with a certain someone whose name shall remain unmentioned -.-. Maybe if I try to squeeze in an analogy that references an anime in there somewhere... Perhaps the way commodification can kill the soul as exemplified by the intial comodification of "dolls" like Yin in Darker than Black? I tried -.-...

 

[phoenyx]

By some definitions, perhaps, but clearly not by the definitions of most people who were around during the cold war between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. In Wikipedia's article on Communism, there's actually a point where it uses the terms communism and socialism as if they were 2 sides of the same coin:
**The 1917 October Revolution in Russia set the conditions for the rise to state power of Lenin's Bolsheviks, which was the first time any avowedly communist party reached that position. The revolution transferred power to the All-Russian Congress of Soviets,[15][16][17] in which the Bolsheviks had a majority. The event generated a great deal of practical and theoretical debate within the Marxist movement. Marx predicted that socialism and communism would be built upon foundations laid by the most advanced capitalist development. Russia, however, was one of the poorest countries in Europe with an enormous, largely illiterate peasantry and a minority of industrial workers. Marx had explicitly stated that Russia might be able to skip the stage of bourgeois rule.[18] Other socialists also believed that a Russian revolution could be the precursor of workers' revolutions in the West.

The moderate Mensheviks opposed Lenin's Bolshevik plan for socialist revolution before capitalism was more fully developed. The Bolsheviks' successful rise to power was based upon the slogans such as "Peace, bread, and land" which tapped the massive public desire for an end to Russian involvement in the First World War, the peasants' demand for land reform, and popular support for the Soviets.[19]

The Second International had dissolved in 1916 over national divisions, as the separate national parties that composed it did not maintain a unified front against the war, instead generally supporting their respective nation's role. Lenin thus created the Third International (Comintern) in 1919 and sent the Twenty-one Conditions, which included democratic centralism, to all European socialist parties willing to adhere. In France, for example, the majority of theFrench Section of the Workers' International (SFIO) party split in 1921 to form the French Section of the Communist International (SFIC). Henceforth, the term "Communism" was applied to the objective of the parties founded under the umbrella of the Comintern. Their program called for the uniting of workers of the world for revolution, which would be followed by the establishment of a dictatorship of the proletariat as well as the development of a socialist economy.**

Source: Communism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Technically they are two sides of the same coin, in the sense that neither one is a functioning system that can actually succeed. Also, the fact that you're acknowledging the Wikipedia article as a reliable source also means you acknowledge that their system lacked every component of Communism.

We've gone over that argument before- I mentioned that that was only the -ideal- of communism, and perhaps not even everyone's ideal. More importantly, both within and outside of the U.S.S.R., defined it as a communist country. I think Obi-Wan Kenobi from Star Wars said it best:
"what I told you was true... from a certain point of view."

Points of view don't deal in facts.

That actually depends upon what your point of view is based on...

The USSR factually was Socialist, and factually were not using a Communist system.

If we define communism the way you are defining it, certainly. If we define it the way millions of people defined it during the cold war, however, you would be mistaken.

The way I'm defining it being the actual given definition. They only called it Communism because it was the government the Communist party created.

I see that you continue to cling to this notion that there is only one definition of Communism. That's simply not the case. To give an example, dictionary.com has 4:
**1. a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.
2. (often initial capital letter) a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.
3. (initial capital letter) the principles and practices of the Communist Party.
4. communalism.**

Source: the definition of communism

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Technically they are two sides of the same coin, in the sense that neither one is a functioning system that can actually succeed. Also, the fact that you're acknowledging the Wikipedia article as a reliable source also means you acknowledge that their system lacked every component of Communism.

We've gone over that argument before- I mentioned that that was only the -ideal- of communism, and perhaps not even everyone's ideal. More importantly, both within and outside of the U.S.S.R., defined it as a communist country. I think Obi-Wan Kenobi from Star Wars said it best:
"what I told you was true... from a certain point of view."

Points of view don't deal in facts.

That actually depends upon what your point of view is based on...

The USSR factually was Socialist, and factually were not using a Communist system.

If we define communism the way you are defining it, certainly. If we define it the way millions of people defined it during the cold war, however, you would be mistaken.

The way I'm defining it being the actual given definition. They only called it Communism because it was the government the Communist party created.

I see that you continue to cling to this notion that there is only one definition of Communism. That's simply not the case. To give an example, dictionary.com has 4:
**1. a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.
2. (often initial capital letter) a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.
3. (initial capital letter) the principles and practices of the Communist Party.
4. communalism.**

Source: the definition of communism

Maybe we need Karl Marx to define it. As defined by him, as I explained before, it has NO classes, people within the government are within a class, this would prevent everyone from being equal, because those people in the government would have power. As defined by the man who inspired this ideology, it has no government.

 

[phoenyx]

We've gone over that argument before- I mentioned that that was only the -ideal- of communism, and perhaps not even everyone's ideal. More importantly, both within and outside of the U.S.S.R., defined it as a communist country. I think Obi-Wan Kenobi from Star Wars said it best:
"what I told you was true... from a certain point of view."

Points of view don't deal in facts.

That actually depends upon what your point of view is based on...

The USSR factually was Socialist, and factually were not using a Communist system.

If we define communism the way you are defining it, certainly. If we define it the way millions of people defined it during the cold war, however, you would be mistaken.

The way I'm defining it being the actual given definition. They only called it Communism because it was the government the Communist party created.

I see that you continue to cling to this notion that there is only one definition of Communism. That's simply not the case. To give an example, dictionary.com has 4:
**1. a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.
2. (often initial capital letter) a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.
3. (initial capital letter) the principles and practices of the Communist Party.
4. communalism.**

Source: the definition of communism

Maybe we need Karl Marx to define it. As defined by him, as I explained before, it has NO classes, people within the government are within a class, this would prevent everyone from being equal, because those people in the government would have power. As defined by the man who inspired this ideology, it has no government.

Maybe -you- need Karl Marx to define it, but I am happy with their being more then one definition of the word ;-)...

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Points of view don't deal in facts.

That actually depends upon what your point of view is based on...

The USSR factually was Socialist, and factually were not using a Communist system.

If we define communism the way you are defining it, certainly. If we define it the way millions of people defined it during the cold war, however, you would be mistaken.

The way I'm defining it being the actual given definition. They only called it Communism because it was the government the Communist party created.

I see that you continue to cling to this notion that there is only one definition of Communism. That's simply not the case. To give an example, dictionary.com has 4:
**1. a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.
2. (often initial capital letter) a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.
3. (initial capital letter) the principles and practices of the Communist Party.
4. communalism.**

Source: the definition of communism

Maybe we need Karl Marx to define it. As defined by him, as I explained before, it has NO classes, people within the government are within a class, this would prevent everyone from being equal, because those people in the government would have power. As defined by the man who inspired this ideology, it has no government.

Maybe -you- need Karl Marx to define it, but I am happy with their being more then one definition of the word ;-)...

The word "Communism" comes from the term "Common ownership", which is defined as collective ownership under no one person's name. Differing from "Public" in the sense that the government doesn't own it or regulate it. If the government owned it, it would not be "Common Ownership". Again, showing that Soviet Russia was not Communist.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Our point of difference is that I do not consider

Ok, again that's fine, my real point is just that I think it would have been better if you'd avoided the base insults against Pumpkin. That's the type of thing that can get a conversational opponent to tune a person out, as a matter of fact, she's now said that she's blocked you.

Pumpkin's a troll.

Apparently not being a Socialist whackjob and understanding how the economy works makes someone a troll. Excuse me while I try to phase all knowledge of history and the economy out of my mind so I can become a Socialist, that way, I can be part of the cancer that destroys Nations.

Uh oh -.- Come on everyone, let's not give in to the dark side ;-). People have different points of views. Sometimes, debates can get heated, and people can forget that we're actually talking to fellow human beings, not "trolls" and "socialist whackjobs". Here's a nice little video, poking fun at Obi-Wan's "certain point of view" dialogue, but I think that contained therein is a very serious point:


Here's to hoping we can learn to accept the fact that just because we don't always agree with each other doesn't mean the other side deserves to be insulted. To quote Nietzsche:
"He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss also gazes into you."

Source: Friedrich Nietzsche - Wikiquote

Facts are facts. Opinions are simply that, and tell us only what someone SAYS they believe. Mostly in order to get people to support their agenda. And primarily, JUST TO WASTE MY TIME. If you want to play patty cake with some clown posting talking points and statements from partisan agendas, knock yourself out. I take proof only. Opinions are for people with too much time on their hands.

What the fuck?

Everything you post is your own dumb ass opinion

 

[Indeependent]

Ok, again that's fine, my real point is just that I think it would have been better if you'd avoided the base insults against Pumpkin. That's the type of thing that can get a conversational opponent to tune a person out, as a matter of fact, she's now said that she's blocked you.

Pumpkin's a troll.

Apparently not being a Socialist whackjob and understanding how the economy works makes someone a troll. Excuse me while I try to phase all knowledge of history and the economy out of my mind so I can become a Socialist, that way, I can be part of the cancer that destroys Nations.

Uh oh -.- Come on everyone, let's not give in to the dark side ;-). People have different points of views. Sometimes, debates can get heated, and people can forget that we're actually talking to fellow human beings, not "trolls" and "socialist whackjobs". Here's a nice little video, poking fun at Obi-Wan's "certain point of view" dialogue, but I think that contained therein is a very serious point:


Here's to hoping we can learn to accept the fact that just because we don't always agree with each other doesn't mean the other side deserves to be insulted. To quote Nietzsche:
"He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss also gazes into you."

Source: Friedrich Nietzsche - Wikiquote

Facts are facts. Opinions are simply that, and tell us only what someone SAYS they believe. Mostly in order to get people to support their agenda. And primarily, JUST TO WASTE MY TIME. If you want to play patty cake with some clown posting talking points and statements from partisan agendas, knock yourself out. I take proof only. Opinions are for people with too much time on their hands.

What the fuck?

Everything you post is your own dumb ass opinion

As opposed to someone else's dumb ass opinion?

 

[Rshermr]

Ok, again that's fine, my real point is just that I think it would have been better if you'd avoided the base insults against Pumpkin. That's the type of thing that can get a conversational opponent to tune a person out, as a matter of fact, she's now said that she's blocked you.

Pumpkin's a troll.

Apparently not being a Socialist whackjob and understanding how the economy works makes someone a troll. Excuse me while I try to phase all knowledge of history and the economy out of my mind so I can become a Socialist, that way, I can be part of the cancer that destroys Nations.

Uh oh -.- Come on everyone, let's not give in to the dark side ;-). People have different points of views. Sometimes, debates can get heated, and people can forget that we're actually talking to fellow human beings, not "trolls" and "socialist whackjobs". Here's a nice little video, poking fun at Obi-Wan's "certain point of view" dialogue, but I think that contained therein is a very serious point:


Here's to hoping we can learn to accept the fact that just because we don't always agree with each other doesn't mean the other side deserves to be insulted. To quote Nietzsche:
"He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss also gazes into you."

Source: Friedrich Nietzsche - Wikiquote

Facts are facts. Opinions are simply that, and tell us only what someone SAYS they believe. Mostly in order to get people to support their agenda. And primarily, JUST TO WASTE MY TIME. If you want to play patty cake with some clown posting talking points and statements from partisan agendas, knock yourself out. I take proof only. Opinions are for people with too much time on their hands.

What the fuck?

Everything you post is your own dumb ass opinion

I only post what I believe to be the truth, or FACT. If I am wrong, I admit it. But I never say something is fact when it is simply an opinion. I would not waste my time. Like when I say you are a dipshit. Because I am sure that is a fact.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Pumpkin's a troll.

Apparently not being a Socialist whackjob and understanding how the economy works makes someone a troll. Excuse me while I try to phase all knowledge of history and the economy out of my mind so I can become a Socialist, that way, I can be part of the cancer that destroys Nations.

Uh oh -.- Come on everyone, let's not give in to the dark side ;-). People have different points of views. Sometimes, debates can get heated, and people can forget that we're actually talking to fellow human beings, not "trolls" and "socialist whackjobs". Here's a nice little video, poking fun at Obi-Wan's "certain point of view" dialogue, but I think that contained therein is a very serious point:


Here's to hoping we can learn to accept the fact that just because we don't always agree with each other doesn't mean the other side deserves to be insulted. To quote Nietzsche:
"He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss also gazes into you."

Source: Friedrich Nietzsche - Wikiquote

Facts are facts. Opinions are simply that, and tell us only what someone SAYS they believe. Mostly in order to get people to support their agenda. And primarily, JUST TO WASTE MY TIME. If you want to play patty cake with some clown posting talking points and statements from partisan agendas, knock yourself out. I take proof only. Opinions are for people with too much time on their hands.

What the fuck?

Everything you post is your own dumb ass opinion

As opposed to someone else's dumb ass opinion?

That hard never posts links to back up his claim and crys like a little bitch when anyone does post links and attacks the messenger

 

[Wyatt earp]

Pumpkin's a troll.

Apparently not being a Socialist whackjob and understanding how the economy works makes someone a troll. Excuse me while I try to phase all knowledge of history and the economy out of my mind so I can become a Socialist, that way, I can be part of the cancer that destroys Nations.

Uh oh -.- Come on everyone, let's not give in to the dark side ;-). People have different points of views. Sometimes, debates can get heated, and people can forget that we're actually talking to fellow human beings, not "trolls" and "socialist whackjobs". Here's a nice little video, poking fun at Obi-Wan's "certain point of view" dialogue, but I think that contained therein is a very serious point:


Here's to hoping we can learn to accept the fact that just because we don't always agree with each other doesn't mean the other side deserves to be insulted. To quote Nietzsche:
"He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss also gazes into you."

Source: Friedrich Nietzsche - Wikiquote

Facts are facts. Opinions are simply that, and tell us only what someone SAYS they believe. Mostly in order to get people to support their agenda. And primarily, JUST TO WASTE MY TIME. If you want to play patty cake with some clown posting talking points and statements from partisan agendas, knock yourself out. I take proof only. Opinions are for people with too much time on their hands.

What the fuck?

Everything you post is your own dumb ass opinion

I only post what I believe to be the truth, or FACT. If I am wrong, I admit it. But I never say something is fact when it is simply an opinion. I would not waste my time. Like when I say you are a dipshit. Because I am sure that is a fact.

You never admit shit
You go on and on about how an ap story is Wrong

 

[Rshermr]

Apparently not being a Socialist whackjob and understanding how the economy works makes someone a troll. Excuse me while I try to phase all knowledge of history and the economy out of my mind so I can become a Socialist, that way, I can be part of the cancer that destroys Nations.

Uh oh -.- Come on everyone, let's not give in to the dark side ;-). People have different points of views. Sometimes, debates can get heated, and people can forget that we're actually talking to fellow human beings, not "trolls" and "socialist whackjobs". Here's a nice little video, poking fun at Obi-Wan's "certain point of view" dialogue, but I think that contained therein is a very serious point:


Here's to hoping we can learn to accept the fact that just because we don't always agree with each other doesn't mean the other side deserves to be insulted. To quote Nietzsche:
"He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss also gazes into you."

Source: Friedrich Nietzsche - Wikiquote

Facts are facts. Opinions are simply that, and tell us only what someone SAYS they believe. Mostly in order to get people to support their agenda. And primarily, JUST TO WASTE MY TIME. If you want to play patty cake with some clown posting talking points and statements from partisan agendas, knock yourself out. I take proof only. Opinions are for people with too much time on their hands.

What the fuck?

Everything you post is your own dumb ass opinion

I only post what I believe to be the truth, or FACT. If I am wrong, I admit it. But I never say something is fact when it is simply an opinion. I would not waste my time. Like when I say you are a dipshit. Because I am sure that is a fact.

You never admit shit
You go on and on about how an ap story is Wrong

Prove it. You made the accusation, so, if you are not lying, prove where I was wrong. But then, you will fail, because you are lying, in my humble but correct opinion.

 

[Rshermr]

Apparently not being a Socialist whackjob and understanding how the economy works makes someone a troll. Excuse me while I try to phase all knowledge of history and the economy out of my mind so I can become a Socialist, that way, I can be part of the cancer that destroys Nations.

Uh oh -.- Come on everyone, let's not give in to the dark side ;-). People have different points of views. Sometimes, debates can get heated, and people can forget that we're actually talking to fellow human beings, not "trolls" and "socialist whackjobs". Here's a nice little video, poking fun at Obi-Wan's "certain point of view" dialogue, but I think that contained therein is a very serious point:


Here's to hoping we can learn to accept the fact that just because we don't always agree with each other doesn't mean the other side deserves to be insulted. To quote Nietzsche:
"He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss also gazes into you."

Source: Friedrich Nietzsche - Wikiquote

Facts are facts. Opinions are simply that, and tell us only what someone SAYS they believe. Mostly in order to get people to support their agenda. And primarily, JUST TO WASTE MY TIME. If you want to play patty cake with some clown posting talking points and statements from partisan agendas, knock yourself out. I take proof only. Opinions are for people with too much time on their hands.

What the fuck?

Everything you post is your own dumb ass opinion

I only post what I believe to be the truth, or FACT. If I am wrong, I admit it. But I never say something is fact when it is simply an opinion. I would not waste my time. Like when I say you are a dipshit. Because I am sure that is a fact.

You never admit shit
I have admitted you several times, so that proves I admit shit.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Uh oh -.- Come on everyone, let's not give in to the dark side ;-). People have different points of views. Sometimes, debates can get heated, and people can forget that we're actually talking to fellow human beings, not "trolls" and "socialist whackjobs". Here's a nice little video, poking fun at Obi-Wan's "certain point of view" dialogue, but I think that contained therein is a very serious point:


Here's to hoping we can learn to accept the fact that just because we don't always agree with each other doesn't mean the other side deserves to be insulted. To quote Nietzsche:
"He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss also gazes into you."

Source: Friedrich Nietzsche - Wikiquote

Facts are facts. Opinions are simply that, and tell us only what someone SAYS they believe. Mostly in order to get people to support their agenda. And primarily, JUST TO WASTE MY TIME. If you want to play patty cake with some clown posting talking points and statements from partisan agendas, knock yourself out. I take proof only. Opinions are for people with too much time on their hands.

What the fuck?

Everything you post is your own dumb ass opinion

I only post what I believe to be the truth, or FACT. If I am wrong, I admit it. But I never say something is fact when it is simply an opinion. I would not waste my time. Like when I say you are a dipshit. Because I am sure that is a fact.

You never admit shit
You go on and on about how an ap story is Wrong

Prove it. You made the accusation, so, if you are not lying, prove where I was wrong. But then, you will fail, because you are lying, in my humble but correct opinion.

That.Seattle minimum wage thread , you went on and on the story's were wrong and your first hand knowledge was more reliable.

 

[Rshermr]

Facts are facts. Opinions are simply that, and tell us only what someone SAYS they believe. Mostly in order to get people to support their agenda. And primarily, JUST TO WASTE MY TIME. If you want to play patty cake with some clown posting talking points and statements from partisan agendas, knock yourself out. I take proof only. Opinions are for people with too much time on their hands.

What the fuck?

Everything you post is your own dumb ass opinion

I only post what I believe to be the truth, or FACT. If I am wrong, I admit it. But I never say something is fact when it is simply an opinion. I would not waste my time. Like when I say you are a dipshit. Because I am sure that is a fact.

You never admit shit
You go on and on about how an ap story is Wrong

Prove it. You made the accusation, so, if you are not lying, prove where I was wrong. But then, you will fail, because you are lying, in my humble but correct opinion.

That.Seattle minimum wage thread , you went on and on the story's were wrong and your first hand knowledge was more reliable.

I did not say my knowledge was more reliable. But, show the source. If you provided it, it probably was a nut case right wing source.
Here is the thing, me right wing nut case. No one, me included, knows what the result of a $15 minimum wage will be over time. My guess is that it will have little effect on employment beyond the first three months. It will have a major impact, however, on employee ability to live reasonable lives. And I do not believe many businesses will go out of business at all. Time, you see, will tell. The deductions made by the nut case right wing web sites are typical con talking points. And cons have always opposed any raise in the minimum wage, and have opposed the minimum wage in general. And lying has never bothered the sources of the far right.