Announcement

Join us on Discord: https://discord.gg/nf43FxS
Reciprocity
Member
+721|5495|the dank(super) side of Oregon
I think he's just underlining the most extreme potential solution to our problems.
Macbeth
Banned
+2,443|4500

[email protected] wrote:

Reciprocity wrote:

so what's the point you're trying to make?  Unless we(the US) collectively want to be the Nazis of the 21st century, the point is moot.
FM is doing his Turquoise impression. They're both neo-cons. Control everything and toss in a bit of wealth redistribution to keep the masses happy.
As I come to understand bf2s and what it implies about the human condition, I also realize that few humans will permit themselves such an understanding. Flaming_Maniac's different. He understand perfectly...

...and he doesn't care
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|5621|67.222.138.85

Reciprocity wrote:

so what's the point you're trying to make?  Unless we(the US) collectively want to be the Nazis of the 21st century, the point is moot.
The point is Dilbert is talking hate and nonsense, and John's grasp of political and philosophical labels is reminiscent of this:

Reciprocity
Member
+721|5495|the dank(super) side of Oregon

Macbeth wrote:

...and he doesn't care
he doesn't?
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,003|4272|London, England

Macbeth wrote:

[email protected] wrote:

Reciprocity wrote:

so what's the point you're trying to make?  Unless we(the US) collectively want to be the Nazis of the 21st century, the point is moot.
FM is doing his Turquoise impression. They're both neo-cons. Control everything and toss in a bit of wealth redistribution to keep the masses happy.
As I come to understand bf2s and what it implies about the human condition, I also realize that few humans will permit themselves such an understanding. Flaming_Maniac's different. He understand perfectly...

...and he doesn't care
Doesn't care about what? Could you be more cryptic?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,003|4272|London, England

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Reciprocity wrote:

so what's the point you're trying to make?  Unless we(the US) collectively want to be the Nazis of the 21st century, the point is moot.
The point is Dilbert is talking hate and nonsense, and John's grasp of political and philosophical labels is reminiscent of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OlYyRP3ugY
Just because you want to delude yourself into thinking you're something you're not doesn't mean I can't call you out on it. It's like the people in Congress preaching wealth redistribution but deluding themselves into believing they aren't socialists. I just call a spade a spade.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Macbeth
Banned
+2,443|4500

[email protected] wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

[email protected] wrote:

FM is doing his Turquoise impression. They're both neo-cons. Control everything and toss in a bit of wealth redistribution to keep the masses happy.
As I come to understand bf2s and what it implies about the human condition, I also realize that few humans will permit themselves such an understanding. Flaming_Maniac's different. He understand perfectly...

...and he doesn't care
Doesn't care about what? Could you be more cryptic?
https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/47545/The_Comedian_Barbequing.jpg
It was a joke. FM is more like Dr. Manhatten anyway
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,003|4272|London, England

Macbeth wrote:

[email protected] wrote:

Macbeth wrote:


As I come to understand bf2s and what it implies about the human condition, I also realize that few humans will permit themselves such an understanding. Flaming_Maniac's different. He understand perfectly...

...and he doesn't care
Doesn't care about what? Could you be more cryptic?
http://static.bf2s.com/files/user/47545 … equing.jpg
It was a joke. FM is more like Dr. Manhatten anyway
Blue with a microscopic penis?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Reciprocity
Member
+721|5495|the dank(super) side of Oregon
lol, wealth redistribution.  The top 20% of Americans control 85% of the wealth in the US.  You think that's really going to change?

look out everyone, there's socialism afoot.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,003|4272|London, England

Reciprocity wrote:

lol, wealth redistribution.  The top 20% of Americans control 85% of the wealth in the US.  You think that's really going to change?

look out everyone, there's socialism afoot.
The top 20% are also doing 85% of the work in creating wealth for the rest of us. Most people are lazy fucks.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Reciprocity
Member
+721|5495|the dank(super) side of Oregon
and you think that will change?
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,003|4272|London, England

Reciprocity wrote:

and you think that will change?
When did I say I think it should change? If they earned it, they should keep it. I'm not the one that goes on jealous rants about people having too much money. They aren't taking it out of my pocket so more power to them.

All wealth redistribution does is reward people for something they didn't rightly earn. It's all well and good for people to complain about their lot in life, but 99% of the people bitching don't want to put the extra work in, don't want to take the risk, don't want to come up with an original idea, but they somehow deserve payment for existing in the same world as the people who do all of the above. Rewarding people for simply existing is not good practice, and sure as hell isn't the way to advance our country.

Last edited by [email protected] (2010-08-01 19:46:36)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Reciprocity
Member
+721|5495|the dank(super) side of Oregon

[email protected] wrote:

Reciprocity wrote:

and you think that will change?
When did I say I think it should change? If they earned it, they should keep it. I'm not the one that goes on jealous rants about people having too much money. They aren't taking it out of my pocket so more power to them.
I didn't ask if you think it should change.  Do you think the government, liberal or conservative, can actually change much or want to change much?  the notion is nothing more than a fox news talking point.

Last edited by Reciprocity (2010-08-01 19:57:37)

Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,003|4272|London, England

Reciprocity wrote:

[email protected] wrote:

Reciprocity wrote:

and you think that will change?
When did I say I think it should change? If they earned it, they should keep it. I'm not the one that goes on jealous rants about people having too much money. They aren't taking it out of my pocket so more power to them.
I didn't ask if you think it should change.  Do you think the government, liberal or conservatives, can actually change much or want to change much?  the notion is nothing more than a fox new talking point.
There's definitely a certain segment of the country that believes in taxing the rich instead of spreading taxation more evenly, yes. Just last year in New York State the state government, under pressure from the unions and "Working Families Party" passed the first graduated income tax in the states history. So, taxes went up on the rich to pay for union labor pay increases. I'd call that wealth redistribution wouldn't you?

Whether they want to call themselves Marxists, Progressives, Socialists, whatever, I don't care. They can change what they call themselves to Fluffy Bunnies but it doesn't change the core principles they push. And that's not Fox talking, that's me talking.



And yes, if they could, they would jack the top end tax bracket to 70% or so while expanding welfare and other payouts in order to 'close the income gap'. How do I know this? Because they've done it before and plenty of people still worship at the altar of FDR.

Last edited by [email protected] (2010-08-01 19:57:22)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,730|5020|eXtreme to the maX

Reciprocity wrote:

Invade and dominate the places that have what we want but are unwilling to play by our rules?  That's an unsustainable policy unless atrocities and sheer brutality are acceptable means.
Seems to be working fine in Afghanistan and Iraq.
No wait...
#FreeBritney
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,730|5020|eXtreme to the maX

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

The point is Dilbert is talking hate
Where exactly?
#FreeBritney
Macbeth
Banned
+2,443|4500

Dilbert_X wrote:

Reciprocity wrote:

Invade and dominate the places that have what we want but are unwilling to play by our rules?  That's an unsustainable policy unless atrocities and sheer brutality are acceptable means.
Seems to be working fine in Afghanistan and Iraq.
No wait...
We aren't committing atrocities and using sheer brutality on the Afghans.
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|5621|67.222.138.85

[email protected] wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Reciprocity wrote:

so what's the point you're trying to make?  Unless we(the US) collectively want to be the Nazis of the 21st century, the point is moot.
The point is Dilbert is talking hate and nonsense, and John's grasp of political and philosophical labels is reminiscent of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OlYyRP3ugY
Just because you want to delude yourself into thinking you're something you're not doesn't mean I can't call you out on it. It's like the people in Congress preaching wealth redistribution but deluding themselves into believing they aren't socialists. I just call a spade a spade.
You're not "calling me on it", you're making nonsensical accusations that hold no bearing on reality.

I believe in so few forms of wealth redistribution it borders closely on absurdity, and anyone remotely well acquainted with DAST would know Turquoise and I are on opposite ends of  just about any spectrum you can come up with. You are still pissed because you can't comprehend Keynes in order to debunk him legitimately.
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|5621|67.222.138.85

Macbeth wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Reciprocity wrote:

Invade and dominate the places that have what we want but are unwilling to play by our rules?  That's an unsustainable policy unless atrocities and sheer brutality are acceptable means.
Seems to be working fine in Afghanistan and Iraq.
No wait...
We aren't committing atrocities and using sheer brutality on the Afghans.
^

Anyone saying otherwise is very, very naive.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

The point is Dilbert is talking hate
Where exactly?

Dilbert_X wrote:

Only an American could misinterpret 'Express outrage' as 'Invade'

Dilbert_X wrote:

Thats the convenient slef-serving intellectual dishonesty which lets [America] trade with despots.
Reciprocity
Member
+721|5495|the dank(super) side of Oregon

[email protected] wrote:

And yes, if they could, they would jack the top end tax bracket to 70% or so while expanding welfare and other payouts in order to 'close the income gap'. How do I know this? Because they've done it before and plenty of people still worship at the altar of FDR.
who is suggesting this?  I have not heard anyone suggest we go back to pre-1980's tax rates.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,003|4272|London, England

Reciprocity wrote:

[email protected] wrote:

And yes, if they could, they would jack the top end tax bracket to 70% or so while expanding welfare and other payouts in order to 'close the income gap'. How do I know this? Because they've done it before and plenty of people still worship at the altar of FDR.
who is suggesting this?  I have not heard anyone suggest we go back to pre-1980's tax rates.
Not openly. It would be political suicide. Too many people still believe in the myth of Reaganomics for them to have any chance of bringing back those tax rates. But, they would if they could. Trust me.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,003|4272|London, England

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

[email protected] wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:


The point is Dilbert is talking hate and nonsense, and John's grasp of political and philosophical labels is reminiscent of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OlYyRP3ugY
Just because you want to delude yourself into thinking you're something you're not doesn't mean I can't call you out on it. It's like the people in Congress preaching wealth redistribution but deluding themselves into believing they aren't socialists. I just call a spade a spade.
You're not "calling me on it", you're making nonsensical accusations that hold no bearing on reality.

I believe in so few forms of wealth redistribution it borders closely on absurdity, and anyone remotely well acquainted with DAST would know Turquoise and I are on opposite ends of  just about any spectrum you can come up with. You are still pissed because you can't comprehend Keynes in order to debunk him legitimately.
I debunked him quite well actually. I didn't need to call on stagflation to 'win' the argument. Quit being a petulant child.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Reciprocity
Member
+721|5495|the dank(super) side of Oregon

Dilbert_X wrote:

Reciprocity wrote:

Invade and dominate the places that have what we want but are unwilling to play by our rules?  That's an unsustainable policy unless atrocities and sheer brutality are acceptable means.
Seems to be working fine in Afghanistan and Iraq.
No wait...
While we're sometimes a bit clumsy we haven't come close to commiting atrocities.  If we really wanted to reign in the taliban we'd destroy entire villages in afganistan and pakistan, we'd round up willing and unwilling harborers and execute them in front of their families and then kill their families. we'd rain down armaments and truely leave the enemy nothing but the scorched hills for refuge.
Reciprocity
Member
+721|5495|the dank(super) side of Oregon

[email protected] wrote:

Not openly. It would be political suicide. Too many people still believe in the myth of Reaganomics for them to have any chance of bringing back those tax rates. But, they would if they could. Trust me.
well, when it becomes an obama talking point, you just let me know.
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|5621|67.222.138.85

[email protected] wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

[email protected] wrote:

Just because you want to delude yourself into thinking you're something you're not doesn't mean I can't call you out on it. It's like the people in Congress preaching wealth redistribution but deluding themselves into believing they aren't socialists. I just call a spade a spade.
You're not "calling me on it", you're making nonsensical accusations that hold no bearing on reality.

I believe in so few forms of wealth redistribution it borders closely on absurdity, and anyone remotely well acquainted with DAST would know Turquoise and I are on opposite ends of  just about any spectrum you can come up with. You are still pissed because you can't comprehend Keynes in order to debunk him legitimately.
I debunked him quite well actually. I didn't need to call on stagflation to 'win' the argument. Quit being a petulant child.
You made several false statements about what his theory even is, much less refuting anything.

Much like you're making wild accusations about the general public with no proof or really even logical argument behind it. Just John says that's the way it is, so that's the way it is.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2021 Jeff Minard