I think he's just underlining the most extreme potential solution to our problems.
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...JohnG@lt 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.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.
...and he doesn't care
The point is Dilbert is talking hate and nonsense, and John's grasp of political and philosophical labels is reminiscent of this: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.
he doesn't?Macbeth wrote:
...and he doesn't care
Doesn't care about what? Could you be more cryptic?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...JohnG@lt 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.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.
...and he doesn't care
"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
-Frederick Bastiat
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.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: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.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OlYyRP3ugY
"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
-Frederick Bastiat
JohnG@lt wrote:
Doesn't care about what? Could you be more cryptic?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...JohnG@lt 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.
...and he doesn't care
It was a joke. FM is more like Dr. Manhatten anyway
Blue with a microscopic penis?Macbeth wrote:
http://static.bf2s.com/files/user/47545 … equing.jpgJohnG@lt wrote:
Doesn't care about what? Could you be more cryptic?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
It was a joke. FM is more like Dr. Manhatten anyway
"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
-Frederick Bastiat
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.
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.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.
"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
-Frederick Bastiat
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.Reciprocity wrote:
and you think that will change?
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 JohnG@lt (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
-Frederick Bastiat
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.JohnG@lt wrote:
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.Reciprocity wrote:
and you think that will change?
Last edited by Reciprocity (2010-08-01 19:57:37)
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?Reciprocity wrote:
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.JohnG@lt wrote:
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.Reciprocity wrote:
and you think that will change?
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 JohnG@lt (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
-Frederick Bastiat
Seems to be working fine in Afghanistan and Iraq.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.
No wait...
Fuck Israel
Where exactly?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
The point is Dilbert is talking hate
Fuck Israel
We aren't committing atrocities and using sheer brutality on the Afghans.Dilbert_X wrote:
Seems to be working fine in Afghanistan and Iraq.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.
No wait...
You're not "calling me on it", you're making nonsensical accusations that hold no bearing on reality.JohnG@lt 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.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: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.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OlYyRP3ugY
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.
^Macbeth wrote:
We aren't committing atrocities and using sheer brutality on the Afghans.Dilbert_X wrote:
Seems to be working fine in Afghanistan and Iraq.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.
No wait...
Anyone saying otherwise is very, very naive.
Dilbert_X wrote:
Where exactly?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
The point is Dilbert is talking hate
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.
who is suggesting this? I have not heard anyone suggest we go back to pre-1980's tax rates.JohnG@lt 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.
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.Reciprocity wrote:
who is suggesting this? I have not heard anyone suggest we go back to pre-1980's tax rates.JohnG@lt 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.
"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
-Frederick Bastiat
I debunked him quite well actually. I didn't need to call on stagflation to 'win' the argument. Quit being a petulant child.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
You're not "calling me on it", you're making nonsensical accusations that hold no bearing on reality.JohnG@lt 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.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
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.
"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
-Frederick Bastiat
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.Dilbert_X wrote:
Seems to be working fine in Afghanistan and Iraq.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.
No wait...
well, when it becomes an obama talking point, you just let me know.JohnG@lt 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.
You made several false statements about what his theory even is, much less refuting anything.JohnG@lt wrote:
I debunked him quite well actually. I didn't need to call on stagflation to 'win' the argument. Quit being a petulant child.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
You're not "calling me on it", you're making nonsensical accusations that hold no bearing on reality.JohnG@lt 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.
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.
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.