our debate will stop here with sophomoric name callingBubbalo wrote:
Indeed I am, but the analogy falls down because George Bush is an asshole.
Or, more accurately, it's a matter of opinion rather than fact, and when it's opinion I'm always right.
Please, the debate hasn't finished warming up until the name calling begins.
If socialism does not support big govt. then who exactly controls all the social welfare that socialism demands???
Socialism encourages taxes, and large administrative services are need to distribute it. But your complaint would appear to be with government interventionism: which isn't encourage by socialism.
So in the still unrealistic world of socialism we are going to get the shit taxed out of all of us and finance large adminstrative services and there is no big govt. involved huh?? I guess in your world, every citizen GLADLY hands over all their money for the collective good huh??Bubbalo wrote:
Socialism encourages taxes, and large administrative services are need to distribute it. But your complaint would appear to be with government interventionism: which isn't encourage by socialism.
In theory, yes.
Having said that, I don't see how taxation would work any differently to how it does now.
Having said that, I don't see how taxation would work any differently to how it does now.
See, this is the problem you and I have bubbalo, you are always speaking in "theories" and "text book". All of my opinions and posts are derived from the real world. NOT from how I want shit to be or the book says it is SUPPOSED to be.Bubbalo wrote:
In theory, yes.
Having said that, I don't see how taxation would work any differently to how it does now.
But you don't get that theory is what something is, and what we actually use is never the pure thing.lowing wrote:
See, this is the problem you and I have bubbalo, you are always speaking in "theories" and "text book". All of my opinions and posts are derived from the real world. NOT from how I want shit to be or the book says it is SUPPOSED to be.
E.g. In pure Capitalism people get their money, there are no taxes, and everybody has to pay for everything themselves. In theory the best people go to the top, the worst stay and the bottom, and everything works as a well-oiled machine. But Capitalist theory doesn't work. So instead we use Capitalism moderated with Socialist tendencies (e.g. welfare etc.). But the fact that that's what we use doesn't mean that's what Capitalism is.
Your problem is that you fail to recognise that because someone says they're something doesn't mean they are. The fact that Stalin said he was Communist doesn't mean he was.
Not only that, but you cannot comment on the real world and how things work until you understand the theory you're commenting on. Finally, I have yet to hear why taxes couldn't work as they do now.
Last edited by Bubbalo (2007-03-30 08:24:45)
But I do accept he is what the world has established him to be. and all of my posts are based on these contexts.Bubbalo wrote:
But you don't get that theory is what something is, and what we actually use is never the pure thing.lowing wrote:
See, this is the problem you and I have bubbalo, you are always speaking in "theories" and "text book". All of my opinions and posts are derived from the real world. NOT from how I want shit to be or the book says it is SUPPOSED to be.
E.g. In pure Capitalism people get their money, there are no taxes, and everybody has to pay for everything themselves. In theory the best people go to the top, the worst stay and the bottom, and everything works as a well-oiled machine. But Capitalist theory doesn't work. So instead we use Capitalism moderated with Socialist tendencies (e.g. welfare etc.). But the fact that that's what we use doesn't mean that's what Capitalism is.
Your problem is that you fail to recognise that because someone says they're something doesn't mean they are. The fact that Stalin said he was Communist doesn't mean he was.
But no, he isn't. Remember that part about majority wisdom isn't alway right? The fact that people were so scared of Communism that they wanted their enemy to be Communist has nothing to do with whether he was. Nothing he did was at all similar to Communism.
I can call myself a pro-military Conservative all I want, it doesn't make it true.
I can call myself a pro-military Conservative all I want, it doesn't make it true.
You tred heavily but I see your point. That is pretty consistent with mylowing wrote:
See, this is the problem you and I have xxxxxxx, you are always speaking in "theories" and "text book". All of my opinions and posts are derived from the real world. NOT from how I want shit to be or the book says it is SUPPOSED to be.xxxx wrote:
In theory, yes.
Having said that, I don't see how taxation would work any differently to how it does now.
"Once your a few years out of school you are more likely to start developing a conservative perspective " The liberal demographic is heavily seated in the MTV audience. They spent a lot of their campaign dollars their starting in 92.
Bub you're being factitious and argumentative. Stalin was a Communist. It's like people say Tony Blair isn't a Socialist, however history will judge him as the most successful Socalist Prime minister and leader of the socalist movement in the UK of modern times.
I think you mean facetious.
And what Communist policies, pray tell, did Stalin go through with?
And what Communist policies, pray tell, did Stalin go through with?
I don't watch MTV, never have. Maybe the US Liberal demographic is, but I doubt it. Typically, Liberal groups spring from Universities and such: you know, places of learning and knowledge. Funny that.................Hunter/Jumper wrote:
You tred heavily but I see your point. That is pretty consistent with mylowing wrote:
See, this is the problem you and I have xxxxxxx, you are always speaking in "theories" and "text book". All of my opinions and posts are derived from the real world. NOT from how I want shit to be or the book says it is SUPPOSED to be.xxxx wrote:
In theory, yes.
Having said that, I don't see how taxation would work any differently to how it does now.
"Once your a few years out of school you are more likely to start developing a conservative perspective " The liberal demographic is heavily seated in the MTV audience. They spent a lot of their campaign dollars their starting in 92.
You were the one who told me Liberal means different things in different countries does that no longer hold true ?Bubbalo wrote:
I don't watch MTV, never have. Maybe the US Liberal demographic is, but I doubt it..Hunter/Jumper wrote:
You tred heavily but I see your point. That is pretty consistent with mylowing wrote:
See, this is the problem you and I have xxxxxxx, you are always speaking in "theories" and "text book". All of my opinions and posts are derived from the real world. NOT from how I want shit to be or the book says it is SUPPOSED to be.
"Once your a few years out of school you are more likely to start developing a conservative perspective " The liberal demographic is heavily seated in the MTV audience. They spent a lot of their campaign dollars their starting in 92.
just a point, there are many more reasons I don't have the time to touch on.Bubbalo wrote:
Typically, Liberal groups spring from Universities and such: you know, places of learning and knowledge. Funny that.................
Once you get Tenure in a US Univ. its almost impossible to lose your position. Schools are all about passing knowledge on ( my teacher had the answers in her math book, lol )
Theory will not pass for success in the business world. Success and failure have more finite and realistic parameters.
You may not realize this now but experience will show you that, You will look back one your School years as you easiest. To this day I wonder why I thought it was so distasteful to be stuck in a classroom.
I am being presumptuous but am I correct to assume you are still in school?
Last edited by Hunter/Jumper (2007-03-30 09:13:05)
LOL you talk as if universities are holy, and NOT places of free sex and drunken debauchery. Again get real for once. There is nothing saintly about college, or college students and what they think they know.Bubbalo wrote:
I don't watch MTV, never have. Maybe the US Liberal demographic is, but I doubt it. Typically, Liberal groups spring from Universities and such: you know, places of learning and knowledge. Funny that.................Hunter/Jumper wrote:
You tred heavily but I see your point. That is pretty consistent with mylowing wrote:
See, this is the problem you and I have xxxxxxx, you are always speaking in "theories" and "text book". All of my opinions and posts are derived from the real world. NOT from how I want shit to be or the book says it is SUPPOSED to be.
"Once your a few years out of school you are more likely to start developing a conservative perspective " The liberal demographic is heavily seated in the MTV audience. They spent a lot of their campaign dollars their starting in 92.
Last edited by lowing (2007-03-30 10:20:00)
yes you're right facetious is what I meant thank you - answer me one question, remind me again what party he was the leader of?Bubbalo wrote:
I think you mean facetious.
And what Communist policies, pray tell, did Stalin go through with?
Last edited by IG-Calibre (2007-03-30 10:05:01)
Only facetious makes no sense in this context.IG-Calibre wrote:
yes you're right facetious is what I meant thank you - answer me one question, remind me again what party he was the leader of?Bubbalo wrote:
I think you mean facetious.
And what Communist policies, pray tell, did Stalin go through with?
Would you consider Hitler a Socialist?
I'll get back you you lowing/Hunter, but for once someone's been even easier to reply to than lowing!
I hope your reply to my posts are easier to understand than.........."I'll get back you you lowing/Hunter, but for once someone's been even easier to reply to than lowing!". Cuz, ya lost me yet again.Bubbalo wrote:
Only facetious makes no sense in this context.IG-Calibre wrote:
yes you're right facetious is what I meant thank you - answer me one question, remind me again what party he was the leader of?Bubbalo wrote:
I think you mean facetious.
And what Communist policies, pray tell, did Stalin go through with?
Would you consider Hitler a Socialist?
I'll get back you you lowing/Hunter, but for once someone's been even easier to reply to than lowing!
Ah! I found the problem you're having, reading comprehension!
Tell ya what, come over here and sit in on a couple of Year 10 english classes, you should be fine after that!
Tell ya what, come over here and sit in on a couple of Year 10 english classes, you should be fine after that!
er.. yes... actually I would.Bubbalo wrote:
Only facetious makes no sense in this context.IG-Calibre wrote:
yes you're right facetious is what I meant thank you - answer me one question, remind me again what party he was the leader of?Bubbalo wrote:
I think you mean facetious.
And what Communist policies, pray tell, did Stalin go through with?
Would you consider Hitler a Socialist?
I'll get back you you lowing/Hunter, but for once someone's been even easier to reply to than lowing!
edit: by the way you still haven't answered my question what party was Stalin the leader of?
Last edited by IG-Calibre (2007-03-31 06:32:48)
Well, maybe you are right but I doubt I will still understand ".........."I'll get back you you lowing/Hunter" even after 10 years of English class.Bubbalo wrote:
Ah! I found the problem you're having, reading comprehension!
Tell ya what, come over here and sit in on a couple of Year 10 english classes, you should be fine after that!
Xxxxxx, Last seen on a dark street corner,..... arguing with a stop sign.
The root of all problems is assosciation.