John McCain Discontinuing Medical Treatment

[TakeYouToTasker]

Just now, The_Dude said:

 

Like when? When have neo-liberal economic principals led to starvation for million? G’head. Tell me. 

 

When has Marxism led to the starvation of millions of people?

 

I though you said you studied history?

 

[keepthefaith]

45 minutes ago, LSHMEAB said:

85% of the cuts went to the top 1%. Now if you believe trickle down economics work, then so be it. Time will tell. Just don't sell it to me as a "middle class miracle."

 

I ascribe to socialist economic policies, so I'm naturally opposed to it. 

 

When people talk about making America great again, I think of a time when the CEO made 30 times what the worker made. Too many people are left behind right now and that's not really a partisan issue. I don't see either side making any appreciable difference. If you simply raised the minimum wage to adjust for inflation, it'd be nearly 20 dollars an hour. These fools are only asking for 15.

 

At every bracket every taxpayer got the same reductions.  As for the top rate it went from 39.6% to 37% federally and those people certainly lost the most on the $10K per year state tax cap, so they didn't benefit all that much and some will actually pay the same and more.  The alternative minimum tax is revised but still in effect so some of the top earners still get stung by that.  Do some math and you'll see. 

 

Corporations and small businesses got breaks, badly needed IMO to keep businesses competitive globally. 

 

Labor is a supply and demand commodity and we are a country of self determination and this is what has allowed the US in a relatively short time historically to become the worlds largest and free-ist economy.  We are a competitive economy, meaning workers compete with each other (some exceptions such as unions which seek to make everyone the same like it or not). 

 

CEO's of America's larger companies have gigantic responsibilities and are worth every nickel especially when compared to athletes and artists IMO who also are supported by lower paid workers and have a fraction of the responsibility. 

 

No offense to the bottom compensated workers but most deserve to be there as they have not done nor are they willing to do what is necessary to improve their economic standing.  Some are younger people on their way up (that's good) and some are simply happy where they are (also good).  Many of the rest are simply not deserving IMO. 

 

 

Edited August 28, 2018 by keepthefaith

[The_Dude]

27 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

When has Marxism led to the starvation of millions of people?

 

I though you said you studied history?

 

 

G’head — when. Say when. G’head. Gimme an example. And I said ‘neo-liberal.’ But use the commies, g’head. 

 

I mean, I know the right name for you to drop, but I doubt you do. 

 

I give you bait and you take it — then I ask for specifics to the issue and you got nothin. Googling right now, eh? 

 

The guy you were arguing with has a stronger historical argument than you do, and I’d wager you don’t know what Marxism is because I’d wager you never studied Marx. Marx’s analyzation skills were on point and well said. His predictions and theories were wild and just wrong. But you wouldn’t know that. As for the guy you were arguing with, google, John Maynard Keynes. Because those neo-liberal economic principals have weight and history to them. But you wouldn’t know. Because that kinda education can’t/won’t be found on message boards, tough guy. 

Edited August 28, 2018 by The_Dude

[TakeYouToTasker]

7 minutes ago, The_Dude said:

 

G’head — when. Say when. G’head. Gimme an example. And I said ‘neo-liberal.’ But use the commies, g’head. 

 

I mean, I know the right name for you to drop, but I doubt you do. 

 

Because I'm talking to a Marxist about extermination and starvation caused by applied Marxism.

 

If you want to talk about neo-liberalism, that's grand, and I'm happy to do so; but you'll have to be more specific.  Are you talking about the laissez-faire implications of the term in the early 20th century, or are you speaking to it's post-linguistic metamorphosis where it came to describe economies governed by state interventionism?

 

Actually, looking back, if you're talking about a death toll, you'd have to be talking about Pinochet, though I'm not really sure why you'd bring that up, as it's totally of topic, unless you're just simply looking to regurgitate unrelated factoids?

 

Soooo...  [/golfclap... I guess?

 

[The_Dude]

6 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

Because I'm talking to a Marxist about extermination and starvation caused by applied Marxism.

 

If you want to talk about neo-liberalism, that's grand, and I'm happy to do so; but you'll have to be more specific.  Are you talking about the laissez-faire implications of the term in the early 20th century, or are you speaking to it's post-linguistic metamorphosis where it came to describe economies governed by state interventionism?

 

Actually, looking back, if you're talking about a death toll, you'd have to be talking about Pinochet, though I'm not really sure why you'd bring that up, as it's totally of topic, unless you're just simply looking to regurgitate unrelated factoids?

 

Soooo...  [/golfclap... I guess?

 

 

Ok, not that  laissez-fairs economics have gone out of style, I’m pretty sure you just unleashed your entire understanding of macroeconomics on me. But I attribute that phrase more to the enlightenment era to French Revolution which was NOT 20th century. 

 

What im referring to as neo-liberal is FDR-today. That’s my personal definition on it though. 

 

But again, what Marxist ECONOMIC reforms led to the deaths of millions. I really wanna know. Tell me. 

 

And im not talking about “Pinochet.”

 

What I’m saying is you don’t know enough about what you’re talking about. You — big hat, no cattle. 

[BringBackOrton]

“When I say neo-liberal, I mean the definition I made up in my head!”

 

Incredible stuff.

[The_Dude]

45 minutes ago, BringBackOrton said:

“When I say neo-liberal, I mean the definition I made up in my head!”

 

Incredible stuff.

 

That, jackwagon, is because what does “liberal” mean. And I didn’t make it up. Google what “neo” means. I’m just stating where I set the timeline at because there’s a timeline to the progression of economic thought. But ya knew that right? Ha, !@#$?

[TakeYouToTasker]

15 hours ago, The_Dude said:

 

That, jackwagon, is because what does “liberal” mean. And I didn’t make it up. Google what “neo” means. I’m just stating where I set the timeline at because there’s a timeline to the progression of economic thought. But ya knew that right? Ha, !@#$?

 

No, he's right.

 

You made up a definition for a term which already had one, and are trying to impose it on the conversation; and it's hilarious to anyone who actually knows what they're talking about.

 

If you'd like a lesson about the social and economic underpinnings of the French Revolution, again, I'm happy to give you a condescending lecture about the confluence of populism, emergent utopian socialism themes opposing European serfdom, and the revolutionary breezes sweeping Europe in 1800s all couched in the ideals of the Enlightenment if your response isn't completely moronic.

 

If I'm being honest I'm not all that optimistic about your chances.

 

It's on you, big boy. 

 

Come surprise me.

 

Edit:  I'll add a response to your post addressed to me as well:

 

You've already betrayed yourself.

 

Everything is economics.  Everything.  

 

That at you don't understand that is very telling.

Edited August 29, 2018 by TakeYouToTasker

[The_Dude]

1 hour ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

No, he's right.

 

You made up a definition for a term which already had one, and are trying to impose it on the conversation; and it's hilarious to anyone who actually knows what they're talking about.

 

If you'd like a lesson about the social and economic underpinnings of the French Revolution, again, I'm happy to give you a condescending lecture about the confluence of populism, emergent utopian socialism themes opposing European serfdom, and the revolutionary breezes sweeping Europe in 1800s all couched in the ideals of the Enlightenment if you're response isn't completely moronic.

 

If I'm being honest I'm not all that optimistic about your chances.

 

It's on you, big boy. 

 

Come surprise me.

 

Edit:  I'll add a response to your post addressed to me as well:

 

You've already betrayed yourself.

 

Everything is economics.  Everything.  

 

That at you don't understand that is very telling.

 

Lol, you gonna lay some Robespierre on me??

 

Ive studied that revolution at a graduate level. You’re using big words (I never do) to try to sound smart ?

 

How’s about you answer my question about 20th century Marxist economics and how millions starved as a result of commie economic policy? How about you start there, Napoleon?!

I mean without google you couldn’t even tell me what triggered that whole, sloppy, bloody affair. Which has one of my fav stories ever — the one about the Queens necklace — but you know it, I’m sure??

 

Im still laughing about that. The reason it’s sooo funny, is that if you did know about that....thing, the French Revolution, you wouldn’t use that as your proof of your knowledge. You’d stay away from it. There’s no consensus on that thing. It’s highly debated today. And it was well documented through many different points of view. It’s arguably more complex than WWI. Like I’m very familiar with the topic. The Marquis Lafayette is one of my beloved heroes. I know a ton about that and the more I learn the more questions I have and the muddier the waters get. And when did the Revolution end and begin? There’s no concensus on that. Lol? you’re so full of ****. You’re a googler who pretends to know things. 

Edited August 29, 2018 by The_Dude

[DC Tom]

2 hours ago, The_Dude said:

 

Google what “neo” means. 

 

Pop philosophy Tecnho-Jesus?

 

3 hours ago, The_Dude said:

But again, what Marxist ECONOMIC reforms led to the deaths of millions. I really wanna know. Tell me. 

 

Jesus...seriously?  Holodomor, the Povolzhye famine, Sannian ji huang, the Cultural Revolution, Democratic Kampuchea, postwar Romania, North Vietnamese land reform... 

[The_Dude]

10 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

Pop philosophy Tecnho-Jesus?

 

 

Jesus...seriously?  Holodomor, the Povolzhye famine, Sannian ji huang, the Cultural Revolution, Democratic Kampuchea, postwar Romania, North Vietnamese land reform... 

 

Dude you shut your whorish mouth. I was witing for a retort about Stalin and Mao. You poop....poop mouth. And my better example weren’t even on your list. 

 

 

SCREW YOU TOM. YOU RUINED IT. 

Edited August 29, 2018 by The_Dude

[DC Tom]

1 minute ago, The_Dude said:

 

Dude you shut your whorish mouth. I was witing for a retort about Stalin and Mao. You poop....poop mouth. And my better example weren’t even on your list. 

 

There are no better examples than Holodomor or the Great Leap Forward.

 

Did you even read your own post?

[The_Dude]

9 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

There are no better examples than Holodomor or the Great Leap Forward.

 

Did you even read your own post?

 

I studied history. I studied French. There’s one man in particular I despise. Who I also find guilty of economic stupidity. You should be able to guess

 

But I DO NOT count your two examples. Stalin’s 5 year plans were intentional. It wasn’t accidental. It wasn’t a result of economic policies. It was genocide. 

 

 Now, Mao — that was the misguided idiocy of killing the sparrow. Not economics. Neither were ECONOMIC results. TOM. 

 

But way to dress up the names. Oh, and, you’re an idiot. 

Edited August 29, 2018 by The_Dude

[/dev/null]

8 hours ago, DC Tom said:

 

Jesus...seriously?  Holodomor, the Povolzhye famine, Sannian ji huang, the Cultural Revolution, Democratic Kampuchea, postwar Romania, North Vietnamese land reform... 

Well yeah but those weren't really Marxists according the current crop of Marxists.  The current crop of Marxists are really smrt and this time they know what they're doing.  All you have to do is click your heels together three times and believe.

 

8 hours ago, The_Dude said:

 

I studied history. I studied French.

Then you should understand there come's a time when you got pwnd and should just surrender

Edited August 29, 2018 by /dev/null

[The_Dude]

35 minutes ago, /dev/null said:

Well yeah but those weren't really Marxists according the current crop of Marxists.  The current crop of Marxists are really smrt and this time they know what they're doing.  All you have to do is click your heels together three times and believe.

 

Then you should understand there come's a time when you got pwnd and should just surrender

 

Surrender? Huh? Is there a battle? Also, idiot, Tom should be embarrassed because those situations weren’t ECONOMIC failures. We were talking “economic failures.”

 

And there has never been a society that has done things exactly how Marx said. What’s your point?!

 

And Tasker wasn’t right about anything. He never says much other than the person he doesn’t like is stupid and he pretends to know what he’s talking about and he doesn’t have a !@#$ing clue. “French Revolution”?

Edited August 29, 2018 by The_Dude

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

1 hour ago, The_Dude said:

And there has never been a society that has done things exactly how Marx said.

 

And here we go. The definitive proof of your actual beliefs

 

[The_Dude]

2 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

 

And here we go. The definitive proof of your actual beliefs

 

 

NO! I'm just saying if you've read Marx (and I have) you'd know that the man was brilliant as an analyst, but bonkers with his predictions. Like, he predicted that the state would confiscate children. That idea is insane. Even people with socialist beliefs would be unlikely to give up their children. I am NOT arguing it'd work if people did it how Marx wanted. I'm saying nobody has done it because Marx was soooo off on what he thought would go down. When you read Marx, he sounds rational when labeling the class issues. You think 'well this sounds right.' But when you read his predictions, one almost wonders if it's the same guy because while at first he sounded rational, his predictions are just absurd. 

 

I mean the fact I have to write that out. Ridiculous. A man can say 'nobody did it like Marx said' and not be a Marxist. 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

1 minute ago, The_Dude said:

I mean the fact I have to write that out. Ridiculous. A man can say 'nobody did it like Marx said' and not be a Marxist. 

 

of course you realize that that is the refrain of every single socialist wannabe out there, yes? "Well it's never been tried!"

 

[The_Dude]

3 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

 

of course you realize that that is the refrain of every single socialist wannabe out there, yes? "Well it's never been tried!"

 

 

Yes, there are a lot of idiots. Enough of it has been tried. 

 

Look, I get the Bolsheviks. I understand the early gang. What they did made sense. But their failure is undeniable and it just doesn’t work. China has proven it doesn’t work too and their recent success proves capitalism is best. There was once a time when socialism seemed a good idea. Literally 100 years ago. But to continue pushing forward with the failed ideology is idiotic. I’m a business owner; not a commie.  

[DC Tom]

10 hours ago, The_Dude said:

 

I studied history. I studied French. There’s one man in particular I despise. Who I also find guilty of economic stupidity. You should be able to guess

 

But I DO NOT count your two examples. Stalin’s 5 year plans were intentional. It wasn’t accidental. It wasn’t a result of economic policies. It was genocide. 

 

 Now, Mao — that was the misguided idiocy of killing the sparrow. Not economics. Neither were ECONOMIC results. TOM. 

 

But way to dress up the names. Oh, and, you’re an idiot. 

 

What retarded definition of "economics" are you using that dekulakization wasn't an economic decision?  You are truly, deeply stupid.  

[The_Dude]

25 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

What retarded definition of "economics" are you using that dekulakization wasn't an economic decision?  You are truly, deeply stupid.  

 

The part where it was willful genocide and not a byproduct of economic stupidity, you old fool. 

 

‘Hey Tom, grow grain, and if I see you eat any I’m gonna kill you!’ That’s not an economic failure. An economic failure was when Churchill went back to the gold standard. Do you see the difference? Stalin was being a dick. On purpose. Intentionally starving people isn’t economics. 

[DC Tom]

i'm not even going to bother reading that, you stoner knucklehead.

[TakeYouToTasker]

26 minutes ago, The_Dude said:

 

The part where it was willful genocide and not a byproduct of economic stupidity, you old fool. 

 

‘Hey Tom, grow grain, and if I see you eat any I’m gonna kill you!’ That’s not an economic failure. An economic failure was when Churchill went back to the gold standard. Do you see the difference? Stalin was being a dick. On purpose. Intentionally starving people isn’t economics. 

 

Holy actual ****.

 

I go away for a few hours, planning to come back and have this argument with you, and when I get here I see you've already lost the argument to yourself.

 

You don't even understand what the terms mean, I mean... you don't even comprehend what economics are, and you're subscribing to a ridiculous brand of psycho-history under which you've chosen to disassociate the centralizing policies of Marxists from the objectives of those policies, which means you don't understand why it failed.

 

This whole conversation is a hot mess, and you're hilarious.

[The_Dude]

49 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

Holy actual ****.

 

I go away for a few hours, planning to come back and have this argument with you, and when I get here I see you've already lost the argument to yourself.

 

You don't even understand what the terms mean, I mean... you don't even comprehend what economics are, and you're subscribing to a ridiculous brand of psycho-history under which you've chosen to disassociate the centralizing policies of Marxists from the objectives of those policies, which means you don't understand why it failed.

 

This whole conversation is a hot mess, and you're hilarious.

 

Dude you’re a jackass. Willful genocide is NOT an economic position. 

 

But let’s break down your post here. 

 

Your first paragraph states: ‘you lost the argument.’ That’s a definitive statement that you just concluded. In that case, clouds are made out of pancakes because I said so. 

 

Your second paragraph is what people like you do. You don’t know what you’re talking about so you pack your paragraph with “big” words to try to sound smart but in the end you said nothing. Your paragraph could read: 

“You’re wrong cause I say you’re wrong.” That’s all you ever write. That’s all you’re capable of. 

 

The funny thing is you tut-tutting around acting like you’re in the know. You’re not. You’re a jackass with a keyboard and a digital thesaurus. ???

[TakeYouToTasker]

1 hour ago, The_Dude said:

Dude you’re a jackass. Willful genocide is NOT an economic position. 

 

If you really believe this, then you don't understand what happened in the Ukraine, and as an aside, could really stand to read The Road to Serfdom, by Hayek.

 

Explain:　

　

- How Stalin's desire to put down budding nationalist sentiment in the Ukraine to bring it under tighter Soviet control wasn't an economic position.

　

- How　the execution of class warfare　against the　Kulaks　wasn't an economic position.

　

- How the forced collectivization of farms wasn't an economic position.

　

- How the putting down of the Ukrainian rebellion when they resisted collectivization wasn't an economic position.

　

- How the sale of Ukrainian grain to foreign markets in pursuit of Stalin's Five Year Plan wasn't an economic position.

　

Once you're done with that, explain how as these things all failed because the people resisted, Stalin taking increasingly brutal action in pursuit of his goals was not the result of the economic policy he pursued.

　

Or, allow me to save you some time:

　

Genocide was the eventual outcome of the progression of the failure of Stalin's brand of Communism.　 It was inevitable because the policy was unworkable, but Stalin insisted on pursuing it.

　

The same thing happens every God damned time, and the outcomes are always the result of the policy.

　

It's cause and !@#$ing effect, or, you know, economics.

 

Your first paragraph states: ‘you lost the argument.’ That’s a definitive statement that you just concluded. In that case, clouds are made out of pancakes because I said so. 

 

No, you lost the argument because you're trying to disassociate interlocked sequences of cause and effect.

 

Stalin didn't set out to commit genocide.  He set out to assert economic and national control over the Ukraine.

 

Genocide resulted because his policies failed and he became more and more brutal in insisting that human nature would not be human nature, demanding instead the emergence of "socialist man" which would never materialize.

 

Your second paragraph is what people like you do. You don’t know what you’re talking about so you pack your paragraph with “big” words to try to sound smart but in the end you said nothing. Your paragraph could read: 

 

 “You’re wrong cause I say you’re wrong.” That’s all you ever write. That’s all you’re capable of.

 

Here's the paragraph in question:

 

"You don't even understand what the terms mean, I mean... you don't even comprehend what economics are, and you're subscribing to a ridiculous brand of psycho-history under which you've chosen to disassociate the centralizing policies of Marxists from the objectives of those policies, which means you don't understand why it failed."

 

Which big word were you struggling with?  "Comprehend" or "centralizing"?

 

The funny thing is you tut-tutting around acting like you’re in the know. You’re not. You’re a jackass with a keyboard and a digital thesaurus.

 

I think we can let the reader decide.

Edited August 29, 2018 by TakeYouToTasker

[DC Tom]

4 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

If you really believe this, then you don't understand what happened in the Ukraine, and as an aside, could really stand to read The Road to Serfdom[/I], by Hayek.

 

Explain: 

 

- How Stalin's desire to put down budding nationalist sentiment in the Ukraine to bring it under tighter Soviet control wasn't an economic position.

 

- How the execution of class warfare against the Kulaks wasn't an economic position.

 

- How the forced collectivization of farms wasn't an economic position.

 

- How the putting down of the Ukrainian rebellion when they resisted collectivization wasn't an economic position.

 

- How the sale of Ukrainian grain to foreign markets in pursuit of Stalin's Five Year Plan wasn't an economic position.

 

Once you're done with that, explain how as these things all failed because the people resisted, Stalin taking increasingly brutal action in pursuit of his goals was not the result of the economic policy he pursued.

 

Or, allow me to save you some time:

 

Genocide was the eventual outcome of the progression of the failure of Stalin's brand of Communism.  It was inevitable because the policy was unworkable, but Stalin insisted on pursuing it.

 

The same thing happens every God damned time, and the outcomes are always the result of the policy.

 

It's cause and !@#$ing effect, or, you know, economics.

 

 

 

 

No, you lost the argument because you're trying to disassociate interlocked sequences of cause and effect.

 

Stalin didn't set out to commit genocide.  He set out to assert economic and national control over the Ukraine.

 

Genocide resulted because his policies failed and he became more and more brutal in insisting that human nature would not be human nature, demanding instead the emergence of "socialist man" which would never materialize.

 

 

 

 

Here's the paragraph in question:

 

"You don't even understand what the terms mean, I mean... you don't even comprehend what economics are, and you're subscribing to a ridiculous brand of psycho-history under which you've chosen to disassociate the centralizing policies of Marxists from the objectives of those policies, which means you don't understand why it failed."

 

Which big word were you struggling with?  "Comprehend" or "centralizing"?

 

 

 

 

I think we can let the reader decide.

 

And lets not forget: he didn't originally say "genocide," he said starvation.

[The_Dude]

3 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

If you really believe this, then you don't understand what happened in the Ukraine, and as an aside, could really stand to read The Road to Serfdom[/I], by Hayek.

 

Explain: 

 

- How Stalin's desire to put down budding nationalist sentiment in the Ukraine to bring it under tighter Soviet control wasn't an economic position.

 

- How the execution of class warfare against the Kulaks wasn't an economic position.

 

- How the forced collectivization of farms wasn't an economic position.

 

- How the putting down of the Ukrainian rebellion when they resisted collectivization wasn't an economic position.

 

- How the sale of Ukrainian grain to foreign markets in pursuit of Stalin's Five Year Plan wasn't an economic position.

 

Once you're done with that, explain how as these things all failed because the people resisted, Stalin taking increasingly brutal action in pursuit of his goals was not the result of the economic policy he pursued.

 

Or, allow me to save you some time:

 

Genocide was the eventual outcome of the progression of the failure of Stalin's brand of Communism.  It was inevitable because the policy was unworkable, but Stalin insisted on pursuing it.

 

The same thing happens every God damned time, and the outcomes are always the result of the policy.

 

It's cause and !@#$ing effect, or, you know, economics.

 

 

 

 

No, you lost the argument because you're trying to disassociate interlocked sequences of cause and effect.

 

Stalin didn't set out to commit genocide.  He set out to assert economic and national control over the Ukraine.

 

Genocide resulted because his policies failed and he became more and more brutal in insisting that human nature would not be human nature, demanding instead the emergence of "socialist man" which would never materialize.

 

 

 

 

Here's the paragraph in question:

 

"You don't even understand what the terms mean, I mean... you don't even comprehend what economics are, and you're subscribing to a ridiculous brand of psycho-history under which you've chosen to disassociate the centralizing policies of Marxists from the objectives of those policies, which means you don't understand why it failed."

 

Which big word were you struggling with?  "Comprehend" or "centralizing"?

 

 

 

 

I think we can let the reader decide.

 

 

Oh my god, kid. This message board is really important to you, huh? Look at how much time you just spent to convince people who don’t know you that you know what you’re talking about! That’s really sad. I really feel bad for you. Wow. That’s sad. Scary actually. Wow. How long did that take you? Is that how much you need this “community?” Anyways, don’t confuse your google search bar with my degree. 

[DC Tom]

Someone tell me again how pot is harmless? 

[The_Dude]

15 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

If you really believe this, then you don't understand what happened in the Ukraine, and as an aside, could really stand to read The Road to Serfdom[/I], by Hayek.

 

Explain: 

 

- How Stalin's desire to put down budding nationalist sentiment in the Ukraine to bring it under tighter Soviet control wasn't an economic position.

 

- How the execution of class warfare against the Kulaks wasn't an economic position.

 

- How the forced collectivization of farms wasn't an economic position.

 

- How the putting down of the Ukrainian rebellion when they resisted collectivization wasn't an economic position.

 

- How the sale of Ukrainian grain to foreign markets in pursuit of Stalin's Five Year Plan wasn't an economic position.

 

Once you're done with that, explain how as these things all failed because the people resisted, Stalin taking increasingly brutal action in pursuit of his goals was not the result of the economic policy he pursued.

 

Or, allow me to save you some time:

 

Genocide was the eventual outcome of the progression of the failure of Stalin's brand of Communism.  It was inevitable because the policy was unworkable, but Stalin insisted on pursuing it.

 

The same thing happens every God damned time, and the outcomes are always the result of the policy.

 

It's cause and !@#$ing effect, or, you know, economics.

 

 

 

 

No, you lost the argument because you're trying to disassociate interlocked sequences of cause and effect.

 

Stalin didn't set out to commit genocide.  He set out to assert economic and national control over the Ukraine.

 

Genocide resulted because his policies failed and he became more and more brutal in insisting that human nature would not be human nature, demanding instead the emergence of "socialist man" which would never materialize.

 

 

 

 

Here's the paragraph in question:

 

"You don't even understand what the terms mean, I mean... you don't even comprehend what economics are, and you're subscribing to a ridiculous brand of psycho-history under which you've chosen to disassociate the centralizing policies of Marxists from the objectives of those policies, which means you don't understand why it failed."

 

Which big word were you struggling with?  "Comprehend" or "centralizing"?

 

 

 

 

I think we can let the reader decide.

 

Oh, should I read the book by “Hayek?” 

 

Hows about Ive read a great deal on Russia, especially the late 19th-mid 20th century because that’s what people with history degrees do. They read. And I don’t believe I ever read “Hayek.” 

 

But yeah, let me put that to the top of my list to appease you. 

 

Youre so obnoxious. It’s obvious you’re a ‘googler.’ 

 

Dont confuse use your google search bar with my degree. 

[TakeYouToTasker]

12 minutes ago, The_Dude said:

 

 

Oh my god, kid. This message board is really important to you, huh? Look at how much time you just spent to convince people who don’t know you that you know what you’re talking about! That’s really sad. I really feel bad for you. Wow. That’s sad. Scary actually. Wow. How long did that take you? Is that how much you need this “community?” Anyways, don’t confuse your google search bar with my degree. 

 

So, in other words, this is your mea culpa.

 

kitty.

[DC Tom]

2 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

So, in other words, this is your mea culpa.

 

kitty.

 

Because no one else, in the history of anything, ever had a degree.   

[TakeYouToTasker]

10 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

Because no one else, in the history of anything, ever had a degree.   

 

This might be my favorite meltdown since NDBUFFCUSE of whatever his name was.

 

"I HAVE A DEGREE GODDAMNIT!!!!"

 

Reminds me of my favorite scene from Office Space.

 

 

 

15 minutes ago, The_Dude said:

 

Oh, should I read the book by “Hayek?” 

 

Hows about Ive read a great deal on Russia, especially the late 19th-mid 20th century because that’s what people with history degrees do. They read. And I don’t believe I ever read “Hayek.” 

 

But yeah, let me put that to the top of my list to appease you. 

 

Youre so obnoxious. It’s obvious you’re a ‘googler.’ 

 

Dont confuse use your google search bar with my degree. 

 

Soooo...

 

You aren't going to address any of the post?

 

I'll try again:

 

Explain: 

 

- How Stalin's desire to put down budding nationalist sentiment in the Ukraine to bring it under tighter Soviet control wasn't an economic position.

 

- How the execution of class warfare against the Kulaks wasn't an economic position.

 

- How the forced collectivization of farms wasn't an economic position.

 

- How the putting down of the Ukrainian rebellion when they resisted collectivization wasn't an economic position.

 

- How the sale of Ukrainian grain to foreign markets in pursuit of Stalin's Five Year Plan wasn't an economic position.

 

Once you're done with that, explain how as these things all failed because the people resisted, Stalin taking increasingly brutal action in pursuit of his goals was not the result of the economic policy he pursued.

 

Or, allow me to save you some time:

 

Genocide was the eventual outcome of the progression of the failure of Stalin's brand of Communism.  It was inevitable because the policy was unworkable, but Stalin insisted on pursuing it.

 

The same thing happens every God damned time, and the outcomes are always the result of the policy.

 

It's cause and !@#$ing effect, or, you know, economics.

 

Edited August 29, 2018 by TakeYouToTasker

[DC Tom]

8 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

This might be my favorite meltdown since NDBUFFCUSE of whatever his name was.

 

"I HAVE A DEGREE GODDAMNIT!!!!"

 

 

I have THREE degrees, so I must be three times as smart as him.  Soon I'll have a fourth, then I'll be even SMARTER.

[Koko78]

11 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

I have THREE degrees, so I must be three times as smart as him.  Soon I'll have a fourth, then I'll be even SMARTER.

 

Yeah, but are any of them advanced degrees in history? Or just that useless crap like physics?

[The_Dude]

25 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

So, in other words, this is your mea culpa.

 

kitty.

 

Ya know, I only know a little latin. I bet without google translate, that’s all you know. Don’t use a language you don’t know. But you can’t help it can you?

 

You like to pretend to be all-knowing and you don’t even know what we’re talking about. I’ve written research papers on it. 

 

Ya know what I do when I don’t know something? I ask questions if I’m interested to learn more. I usually say ‘hi, I’m not familiar with this subject. Can you tell me a bit?’ You, you google and pretend to be able to lecture. Phony. 

8 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

I have THREE degrees, so I must be three times as smart as him.  Soon I'll have a fourth, then I'll be even SMARTER.

 

I never used that logic. Degrees do not equal intelligence. They do indicated an academic familiarity and training. 

[DC Tom]

1 minute ago, Koko78 said:

 

Yeah, but are any of them advanced degrees in history? Or just that useless crap like physics?

 

The fourth...

[TakeYouToTasker]

1 hour ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

Explain:

 

-  How Stalin's desire to put down budding nationalist sentiment in the Ukraine to bring it under tighter Soviet control wasn't an economic position.

 

-  How the execution of class warfare against the Kulaks wasn't an economic position.

 

-  How the forced collectivization of farms wasn't an economic position.

 

-  How the putting down of the Ukrainian rebellion when they resisted collectivization wasn't an economic position.

 

-  How the sale of Ukrainian grain to foreign markets in pursuit of Stalin's Five Year Plan wasn't an economic position.

 

Once you're done with that, explain how as these things failed because the people resisted, Stalin taking increasingly brutal action in pursuit of his goals was not the result of the economic policy he pursued.

@The_Dude

 

Any updates on this?

 

 

[DC Tom]

6 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

@The_Dude

 

Any updates on this?

 

 

 

He still has a degree, dammit!

[TakeYouToTasker]

5 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

He still has a degree, dammit!

 

I am, quite honestly, in a minor state of disbelief that anyone would set that aside as an unusual achievement conferring some sort of special status in 2018 America.

 

I'm always surprised when I run into someone who doesn't have a degree of some sort.  In my field it's unusual to meet people who don't have a graduate degree further backed by piles of additional credentialing.

 

It's like he's bragging that he was born with lips, and trying to use it to differentiate himself from other humans based on that claim.

 

If he wasn't such an in-your-face dickbag, I'd actually be embarrassed for him.

[LSHMEAB]

21 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

You aren't "naturally opposed to it".

 

You've chosen to be opposed to it because you've chosen to subscribe to a set of economic theories which have directly led to the extermination and starvation of millions of people over the last century;  while at the same time ignoring the fact that the standard of living of the poorest Americans was drastically lower during the time when CEOs made 30 times what laborers made.

 

85% of the cuts went to the top 1% because that's who pays all the taxes.  The top 1% pays more than 40% of all taxes, and more than the bottom 95% of tax payers combined.  Relief naturally goes to the emburdened.  Where else could it go?

 

And the results?

 

Consumer confidence at an 18 year high

 

Record low black unemployment

 

US jobless rate at an 18 year low.[/I]

 

US "real" unemployment rate at a 17 year low, and falling faster than the official rate.

 

The falling away of pre-employment drug testing as employers struggle to find enough qualified candidates.

 

The DOW stabilizing near a record high.

 

401k savings at a record high.

 

 

 

 

 

Standard of living was drastically lower when CEO's made 30 times the worker? Seems arbitrary. 

 

There's no question overall economic numbers are terrific. They've been trending that way for awhile now, especially for folks who were already wealthy. It's safe to say deregulation accelerated that growth, environment be damned. I wouldn't think a $15 basement wage is some kind of radical proposal. Companies won't suddenly overhaul the hiring process. They'll continue to employ as few humans as possible. They'll eliminate as many jobs as possible. That's how capitalism works. If you can't pay somebody 15 bucks an hour, maybe you should re-evaluate the business model.

 

I don't think millionaires and billionaires need any help. They're doing just fine. I worry about the lower skilled folks increasingly left behind. Modern technology is a blessing and a curse. Some drastic measures will be needed in the very near future as labor becomes more obsolete.