As to healthcare, that does nothing for workers or unemployment. And by fueling your little operation by raising the cost of employment or jacking up taxes what you're going to do is depress employment and depress capital investment within the jurisdiction of your tax regime.
You know this. Which is why you don't want these programs to be state based. You know that some states will not sign on and they'll get a competitive economic advantage against states that will adopt those policies.
And you don't want that to happen so you want it to be federal.
The problem with your little idea is that you don't control the entire planet, you can't impose protectionist tariffs, and you're ultimately encouraging automation by making the robots more attractive economically. You're also making it hard for people to break into the labor force and get the vital on the job business training that makes someone more attractive to employers. Employers don't want someone that has never had a job before. Experienced labor is more valuable. But if you make inexperienced labor unattractive then businesses won't hire them.
Think for a moment like someone that has a clue about how markets work. I know you know how they work. But you have these mental blocks in place that click into effect whenever the obvious economic answer conflicts with your ideology.
The economy doesn't care what you believe. Its going to work the way it works. The market is going to judge what is in the economic interest of the buyer and the seller and it is going to veto any transaction that is seen to be uneconomical.
Your push for healthcare reform came at a terrible time. You imposed it in the wake of an economic collapse. You raised the cost of employing people at a time when people needed jobs. Your ideology does this all the time and it never admits it.
As to workers needing skills to be attractive to business... wrong. The COST of the employees must be relative to their perceived value. That means, unskilled labor needs to be paid less. And if the cost is low enough, then the businesses will buy.
Why do you think illegal immigrants are so popular with business? You don't have to pay them minimum wage, they won't file insurance claims, there's no healthcare payments... really an endless list of things that makes them cheaper.
Now here you're going to say that people shouldn't be paid that little. Well, that's what they're worth. So they can either sell their labor for what it is worth or it won't sell. PERIOD.
Now here are some things we could do that I think are good compromises.
1. Welfare for people that work. So you get paid very little and have no benefits etc because you're really not worth more than that... either because you're just starting out or you're basically retarded and will never be valuable no matter what anyone does. I am okay with welfare for people that WORK.
The business trains new labor and doesn't have to pay more for the labor than it is worth and you can dispense welfare out to the difference between what they're making and what you think they should make.
2. Complete acceptance of labor unions in all form so long as they are not compulsory. That is, workers can pay dues to the union and be members... or not with no compulsion or coercion either way. If people want to be in the union then they can do that and if they don't then they simply bypass it entirely.
3. As to the cost of healthcare, the issue there is that healthcare is too expensive not that people aren't getting enough subsidies. There are a lot of things that make healthcare artificially expensive. We can deal with those and that will bend the cost curve down sharply.
4. Automatic green cards for everyone that is working in the US. This means there is no such thing as illegal labor anymore. No deportations or whatever. But that also means that those people have to abide by all the rules that apply to the regular labor force.
5. Something should be done to help kids get job experience
This is a leading question and a trap. Lets talk about the education system. It is entirely subsidized and we can see repeatedly that there is little to no link between funding and the quality of the education.
So... where to now?
I went to school for part of my education in a bussed school. That is, kids were bussed from one side of town to my school on the other side of town. And guess what? It was still segregated.
Why? Because all the bussed kids were in the remedial education classes and all the kids that actually lived in the area were taking honors and AP courses. Only the sports team mixed. And even there only a little. Because the local kids were all in varcity baseball or volley ball or f'ing surfing or golf or tennis. Where as the bussed kids were mostly in basketball if they were in sports at all.
The art departments and elective classes were the same. I took drama and learned about movie making from someone that used to work in hollywood. I went to a really really nice public school.
But there was no mixing.
The people you're trying to save... you're not going to save them the way you are going about it.
I want to help them even more than you do. I want to help them enough to ACTUALLY make a difference.
Where as the reality is that most of people that say they want to help these kids are just playing to the camera to get votes or make the opposition look bad by suggesting that while you want to help children... the opposition naturally must be against helping children.
Its bullshit politics and you're not helping anyone by buying into it.
As to tinkering. You're raised the COST and RISK of employing people.
If you see labor as the product on the market that it ultimately is... what happens when you increase the cost and reduce the quality of a product?
Sales are depressed.
If you want to improve an economic problem then you're going to have to think ECONOMICALLY rather than ideologically. Your ideology doesn't understand economics any better than cargo cults understand airplanes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
It gives the seeming of understanding it. But its a pretense.
If the ideology of the left understood economics it would have better results. The rust belt would not have rusted.
IF you care. You ACTUALLY care... then do what will ACTUALLY help people.
yet again you validate what i said about you... you said this: ""
Ask a Native American about land being stolen. Ask the natives of South America about land being stolen.
But I said resources, which is more than just land. It's minerals and the rights to mine them given over to colonial corporations at the point of a gun, it's timber and oil and water and anything else that has even a glimmer of monetary value.
Regardless, you seem to cling to your stupidity like a man on the edge of a cliff clings to God, so desperate to be right you won't even try to save yourself. I'm done with you as well. ""
That got a response from me. You then saying "why are you talking to me" is moronic. As in something a moron would say.
Explain please how the native american population in the US is suffering from over population, food shortages, etc?
They were genocided so it is impossible to cite them in this discussion with any relevance.
The question is not whether various nations did bad things to other nations in the past. That is obvious and beyond dispute. The issue is about populations etc. And on that basis, these citations are as besides the point as talking about how loudly your mother screams "Oh GOD" when she gets fucked in the ass.
Oh sorry was that rude? Get on fucking point. I can't nail you little idiots with a cattle prod when you get out of control so I'm damn well not going to pass up an opportunity to at least vent my frustration with your asinine commentary.
*laughs* You just conceded and you're too stupid to realize it. Where do you morons come from?
Fuck off. Either cite a country with that information or you can't claim to know the spending. You say single payer spends less? My point was you have no fucking way of even knowing what you spend. You contradicted me... I said show me the numbers... you say you can't... You lose, motherfucker.
You said YOU knew. But you clearly either didn't understand what I was asking for or lied.
Either way... I have no patience for you. Fuck off.
Give me your complete estimation for a single payer society's healthcare costs that takes into consideration all subsidies.
Any country you like. You choose.
As to whether I believe in subsidies... I don't mind them so long as they're efficient, are implemented rationally, and the reasons for them are not merely political gamesmanship/handouts to political backers/any other kind of cynical ploy to increase power indifferent to the supposed issues at hand.
As to your admission that your argument was stupid... thank you for admitting your argument was stupid.
Everything is there already, Neil. Just like everyone else... your crap is already on the internet. You can either get paid for it or not. Your choice.
But refusing to participate just means you don't get paid.
I'm talking about targets built to take a hit and perhaps come out of it bloody... but grinning.
If you have an asteroid base with your facilities all in the core of the rock... then a ton of TNT exploding against the surface of the rock isn't going to be a knock out punch.
As to being unpredictable... Maybe I'm misunderstanding how this will work and you can't be sneaky. But my assumption was that you could. If you can be sneaky then you can be unpredictable.
As to the beam path... the foil you're hitting is going to be very hot and is going to show up clearly. The target will know what it is... and they'll therefore know that at the other end of it is the laser. And by simply drawing a line between the foil and the target... you can figure out exactly where that laser is right now. Then you fire something back at it.
Optics equipment is exposed to light... so if you fired a powerful laser right at their laser... you could probably destroy it more easily than most things just because its guts have to be exposed to even emit the laser in the first place. Any sort of defect in the lens of their laser is going to force them to shut it down immediately or their laser will destroy itself. You just need to damage it a bit and it will shut off. Then you can fire a something at the likely large target that is a good deal nastier than a bit of foil.
Explain to me why you're not interested in investigating or reforming the legal practices that lead to false convictions but are only interested in the frankly trite repetition of talking points that do nothing to address underlying problems?
That is what you're doing.
That isn't an ad hominem. If your dick is inside a sheep... I am not laying out an ad hominem by calling you a sheep fucker. That's a description of what is happening.
I looked at your argument and noted what you were doing. Then cited you for doing it. That's not ad hominem.
Ad hominem is "you're wrong because you're stupid" or "you're wrong because you're a sheep fucker".
What I said was "You seem to be doing X which undermines the intent of your argument for Y."
I also pointed out that the underlying problem with Y is that there are issues with X. I pointed out that removing Y does not address X and that if you could fix X then Y would naturally be fixed as well.
So I ask again, why are you fixated on the death penality issue and not on general miscarrages of justice?
Maybe this will help... lets look at a specific case. I'll do all the research for you.
So apparently his defense do a good enough job of questioning evidence at the trial.
Whether the guy is actually innocent or not is... somewhat murky here. Was he convicted on trumped up evidence? Possibly... also possibly he got off on a technicality.
This one involves video evidence of the execution style killing of three bound people. The other person on the video is still on death row since it is less controversal that he did it. That said, why it is controversal that the other man is or is not this other fellow is not obvious to me.
For one thing we should be seeing secondary evidence such as blood or powder residue or something. I know that is something of a CSI answer but this is the 21st century and I'd like to see that.
The details are not obvious here. I'd have to look into this case more. It is possible that he got off on a technicality or just retried his case until the jury found him innocent. I don't know.
One thing I'm starting to suspect is that many of the over turned convictions are themselves in error. I wouldn't say that in all or even most of them but I've seen two now that don't sound right.
So there are issues with rewarding informants and disclosing the context of state evidence.
See how fucking easy this is?
We just go through all these and instead of focusing on the execution, we focus on what actually went wrong. Its far more productive and much more interesting.
Alright, this one has another defense lawyer that is apparently incompetent. So this is something you can bring to the law schools and the bar associations and say "hey, the quality of lawyers you're sending into the system has to be improved in this context."
And beyond that we have a witness that lied... and some more nonsense from the prosecutors fucking with the ev
You're implying we stripped the former colonies of farm land?
And even if we did, which we didn't, that wouldn't change the fact that our populations are supportable and theirs probably aren't.
Are you trying to morally rationalize famine? An empty belly doesn't care WHY it is empty. It just cares that it is. Your entire counter argument is irrelevant stupidity.
As to rotting social fabric... mostly the result of cultural marxists... the rot is most extreme in places they control. Look at Detroit. Look at Philadelphia where we had a riot recently. Its all in zones controlled by the same people that you see the rot.
The north used to be the great industrial heart of the US... then socialists took it over... the industry almost immediately started to die... and has not recovered. And where is the new growth? In all the places these people are not. They're even starting to fuck up silicon valley. They can't insert themselves into it with labor policy and unions so they're going to do it with political correctness. So far it isn't hurting things too badly but if they don't stop then the big tech companies will relocate out of those zones.
These people rot everything they touch. I agree with you. But the rot you see is them. Not the nation itself.
Outside of their zones of control... places where gun control is a dirty word... we are seeing factory growth, we are seeing economic activity, we are seeing stronger families...
You know only what you're told about the US and the people that control our media are generally the same people fucking our country up.
Actually capitalism has more meritocracy and upward mobility than any other system ever attempted.
As to capitalism being made for people to not rise then the old landed nobility would still rule us. They don't because you're wrong. Large portions of our elite are first generation elites. Not even hereditary. That is unique of any system before it and that includes your marxist bullshit that just made the government ministers into the new nobility in any country it was tried. So sure, you get some mobility during the revolution itself and then you get stagnation again worse than anything in capitalism.
As to this notion that you're going to violently overthrow the country in the name of marxism... Go for it.
My records go back farther and they show 4 percent. Which is still too high.
The issue however is not the execution by why we're getting false convictions.
Your indifference to why we're getting false convictions implies you don't care about justice but rather have simply fixated on a talking point and wish to make an issue out of capital punishment while ignoring that the cause of the problem is not the execution but some flaw in the judicial process that not only effects executions but all convictions.
No, i'm not being argumentative... I'm defeating your argument against me.
There's a difference. Are you being argumentative?
We are having an argument... So sure... from that stand point we're both inherently argumentative.
Look, if you want play word games with me, you'll find I'm probably a lot better at it than you are. Its a skill I have. But if you want to have a rational discussion then you're going to have to let that go.
You don't a point by playing word games. That's just semantical nonsense.
You win an argument by proving to whomever matters to you that you were right and they were wrong.
Now... on the internet... generally that's just yourself. If you think you were right then you are going to declare victory. We all do that and we really have no choice because we argue against people that will just be stubborn when they lose. So you have to just take what you can and move on.
In the context of this discussion... people said I didn't have a right to an opinion because I didn't have an aeronautical degree.
That's an obvious fallacy and one that I defeated not by arguing the illogic by by potinting out that even if it weren't an irrational argument, that it would still be wrong because the idea was popularized by people with such degrees.
now if you want to have a discussion about economics etc... we can do that, but its going to boil down to you saying that we can't do a thing because we don't currently do it that way.
Most of the economic barriers are about sunk costs of existing infrastructure. You do things a different way and lots of things have to be redesigned.
Frankly I don't really care about this argument anymore. Instead of thinking about something interesting you decided to be a prick and a stupid one at that.
So fine. You disagree and you apparently don't like me. Fine... I don't really care. You're boring and you brought nothing of interest to the discussion. You failed to enlighten anyone, show a new way of thinking, add new information, or add any value to the people that were here.
If that's what you consider to be success... then so be it.
The inequality can't harm mobility unless you literally can't get a job.
Mobility isn't about how much you make but about how much you COULD make. Its not a question of equality of outcome but equality of opportunity.
Paying people 1000 times other people doesn't mean you can't make that money.
What harms mobility is changing circumstances so that people can't get work and can't even break into an industry.
And that isn't an issue of paying people a lot. That is rather an issue of artificial barriers to employment and advancement.
Now... some of those are unavoidable. But a lot of them are the result of bad government laws.
Think about it... its gotten WORSE the more you've tinkered with the labor market. Almost every change has resulted in a statistical reduction in employment and an increase in the inequality.
Consider that the best way forward might be to go back to what we had before. Would you trade the labor participation in 2015 with the labor participation in 1950? Its possible. But you'd have to kill a lot of bad programs and be quite ruthless about it.
They already hate us to the extent they ever will. That's a zero sum game.
Removing the sanctions doesn't make them stop hating us. It just makes them more able to act on that hate.
As to forever... no... they are already or were already showing serious signs of cracking in the next 10 to 20 years. Their youth population are on the internet. They don't regard their own government as being much better than we do.
And as to the economy... their business interests are not happy either.
You assume that the people will just sympathize wtih the government.
Iran is not north korea. A lot of what they do is not popular with their people.
The idea here would be to keep pressure until they crack.
Look at what happened to the USSR. It takes TIME. You have to be willing to hold them under and wait for them to stop thrashing... then wait for the brain to die. Ruthless? Yes. But it avoids war and gets us to the same place.
You don't know that. The transition from farm workers to factory workers was not instant and it was not easy.
This automation thing is just getting started. It will take a couple generations to sort things out.
And I'd point out that making it harder to hire people and more expensive to hire people and giving people that aren't even trying to get jobs welfare isn't helping.
If you want a faster transition, then you need to lower the risk and cost of hiring people. Lower the regulations, adjust the whole healthcare paradigm, and you need to let employers fire people if they deem that to be in the interest of their business. Otherwise businesses have to go through a lot of hoops and it just makes the whole process of hiring people a hassle.
Understand. The market doesn't stop at the super market.
Employees are basically products... commodities. If something isn't selling well then you need to look at your marketing, you need to look at your product quality, you need to look at your costs, and your need to look at your competition.
Here you're going to say "people aren't products"... to the market they are. You're basically arguing with the Sun on that issue to quote the old Roman saying. The market isn't something you can reason with... it is an unconscious intelligence. A self organizing self evolving system... with no awareness. The "invisible hand". If you want it to buy something... your labor for example... then you need to offer that labor in a way that is attractive in the market OR it is not in the interests of the businesses to hire you any more than it is in your interest to buy a car that is too expensive or poor quality or something.
I appreciate you want people to have a better life. I appreciate your good intentions. However... we both know what the road to hell is paved with... the intentions aren't worth much. They just aren't. I know that's tough... but that's reality.
If you want to help people then you need to improve their value in the market.
I believe we can do that. I believe we can make countries with falling labor participation have a turn around. BUT... there is a price. And that price is that you have to stop thinking in Marxist terms about what people AUGHT to do and instead focus on the marketability of people so that you make it in the interest of other market players to THROW money at these people.
You need to lower the cost and risk of hiring labor.
And while you're at it, stop bad mouthing the labor force. A day doesn't go by when we're not told how stupid the labor force is... how lazy they are... how the jobs they're losing are not hte jobs they want to do in the first place. A lot of that comes out of the government itself.
And while we're at it, we could stop sabotaging the public school system. That is going to mean firing bad teachers. That is going to mean compartmentalizing schools and letting bad schools DIE and good schools stand as examples of how not to fuck up. That means no more "too big to fail" school boards. Not unified school boards. No more promoting failed teachers into administration. No more "rubber rooms" where teachers that are known to be incompetent are kept doing make work because it is impossible to fire them.
If you CARE about the labor force more than your political advantage... you'll do this. If you don't... then the talk about helping the workers is just a pretense.
I would be like me saying your use of conservative christian or something was a smearing word. It isn't is it? Is democrat or republican or pineapple or spoon a smearing word? Or does it simply describe the thing?
Only progressives do this... this attempt to gaslight people in conversations by controlling language. You redefine words, prevent people from using words, and then use your own little buzz words to control the conversation.
I won't permit it. I am too rhetorically advanced to find such childish word games anything but laughable defenses. You don't get to decide which words I use and I will not permit you to redefine yourself or other concepts when they become toxic through the known history of what similar ideologues have done through time. If you want your ideology to have a less toxic image then stop being insufferable shitheads.
As to marx having good ideas... tell me one of them that is both good and original. Because whenever someone tells me marx had a good idea it either turns out to be laughably horrible or something about as interesting as "ketchup goes well with french fries"... aka nothing you could actually attribute to marx in the first place.
So tell me his good ideas.
As to socialism, lets not conflate the rabble with the ideologues. What the masses believe about anything has little influence on what an ideology is really about and what they want to happen is often not what actually happens. In the US, how many people actually read the federalist papers? Too few. How many of them actually inform themselves of legislation through congress or the various interest groups that ultimately legislation through the system? Almost none. So what do they know? The same is true in europe.
We've too many peasants in our societies. People that like to be led. They are the cannon fodder for ideologies like your own and they are the greatest threat to those few of us that are wish to be free but don't want to dominate people.
At the risk of sounding trite, there are three types of people on this world. Those that like to dominate people. Those that like to be dominated. And those that wish to be free.
My country was a government of the free, for the free, and by the free. Yes... the literal chattel slavery of Africans... but at the time they were not even believed to be properly human. A convenient dodge perhaps but philosophically valid in the context of the political system if it had been true. It was later found to not be true thus the justification for it became unsupportable.
So lets focus on the academics and the ideologues please. And expect me be fully ready for any word games. Let us not conflate the various joe six packs that join any group without especially understanding anything.
As to the failure of the working classes to rise up... yep. Which is when the cultural marxists started whispering in our ears. https://youtu.be/b3w6c7RUbUs?t...
Dramatic? Sure. But accurate. This increasing fascination with political correctness is direct from them. Who came up with that term? The Eastern Europeans recognize it. Its a part of the system. Control the language. Control the thoughts. Control the history.
Slashdot Mirror
As to healthcare, that does nothing for workers or unemployment. And by fueling your little operation by raising the cost of employment or jacking up taxes what you're going to do is depress employment and depress capital investment within the jurisdiction of your tax regime.
You know this. Which is why you don't want these programs to be state based. You know that some states will not sign on and they'll get a competitive economic advantage against states that will adopt those policies.
And you don't want that to happen so you want it to be federal.
The problem with your little idea is that you don't control the entire planet, you can't impose protectionist tariffs, and you're ultimately encouraging automation by making the robots more attractive economically. You're also making it hard for people to break into the labor force and get the vital on the job business training that makes someone more attractive to employers. Employers don't want someone that has never had a job before. Experienced labor is more valuable. But if you make inexperienced labor unattractive then businesses won't hire them.
Think for a moment like someone that has a clue about how markets work. I know you know how they work. But you have these mental blocks in place that click into effect whenever the obvious economic answer conflicts with your ideology.
The economy doesn't care what you believe. Its going to work the way it works. The market is going to judge what is in the economic interest of the buyer and the seller and it is going to veto any transaction that is seen to be uneconomical.
Your push for healthcare reform came at a terrible time. You imposed it in the wake of an economic collapse. You raised the cost of employing people at a time when people needed jobs. Your ideology does this all the time and it never admits it.
As to workers needing skills to be attractive to business... wrong. The COST of the employees must be relative to their perceived value. That means, unskilled labor needs to be paid less. And if the cost is low enough, then the businesses will buy.
Why do you think illegal immigrants are so popular with business? You don't have to pay them minimum wage, they won't file insurance claims, there's no healthcare payments... really an endless list of things that makes them cheaper.
Now here you're going to say that people shouldn't be paid that little. Well, that's what they're worth. So they can either sell their labor for what it is worth or it won't sell. PERIOD.
Now here are some things we could do that I think are good compromises.
1. Welfare for people that work. So you get paid very little and have no benefits etc because you're really not worth more than that... either because you're just starting out or you're basically retarded and will never be valuable no matter what anyone does. I am okay with welfare for people that WORK.
The business trains new labor and doesn't have to pay more for the labor than it is worth and you can dispense welfare out to the difference between what they're making and what you think they should make.
2. Complete acceptance of labor unions in all form so long as they are not compulsory. That is, workers can pay dues to the union and be members... or not with no compulsion or coercion either way. If people want to be in the union then they can do that and if they don't then they simply bypass it entirely.
3. As to the cost of healthcare, the issue there is that healthcare is too expensive not that people aren't getting enough subsidies. There are a lot of things that make healthcare artificially expensive. We can deal with those and that will bend the cost curve down sharply.
4. Automatic green cards for everyone that is working in the US. This means there is no such thing as illegal labor anymore. No deportations or whatever. But that also means that those people have to abide by all the rules that apply to the regular labor force.
5. Something should be done to help kids get job experience
Why can't they attend a good school?
What is wrong with the existing education system?
This is a leading question and a trap. Lets talk about the education system. It is entirely subsidized and we can see repeatedly that there is little to no link between funding and the quality of the education.
So... where to now?
I went to school for part of my education in a bussed school. That is, kids were bussed from one side of town to my school on the other side of town. And guess what? It was still segregated.
Why? Because all the bussed kids were in the remedial education classes and all the kids that actually lived in the area were taking honors and AP courses. Only the sports team mixed. And even there only a little. Because the local kids were all in varcity baseball or volley ball or f'ing surfing or golf or tennis. Where as the bussed kids were mostly in basketball if they were in sports at all.
The art departments and elective classes were the same. I took drama and learned about movie making from someone that used to work in hollywood. I went to a really really nice public school.
But there was no mixing.
The people you're trying to save... you're not going to save them the way you are going about it.
I want to help them even more than you do. I want to help them enough to ACTUALLY make a difference.
Where as the reality is that most of people that say they want to help these kids are just playing to the camera to get votes or make the opposition look bad by suggesting that while you want to help children... the opposition naturally must be against helping children.
Its bullshit politics and you're not helping anyone by buying into it.
As to tinkering. You're raised the COST and RISK of employing people.
If you see labor as the product on the market that it ultimately is... what happens when you increase the cost and reduce the quality of a product?
Sales are depressed.
If you want to improve an economic problem then you're going to have to think ECONOMICALLY rather than ideologically. Your ideology doesn't understand economics any better than cargo cults understand airplanes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
It gives the seeming of understanding it. But its a pretense.
If the ideology of the left understood economics it would have better results. The rust belt would not have rusted.
IF you care. You ACTUALLY care... then do what will ACTUALLY help people.
yet again you validate what i said about you... you said this:
""
Ask a Native American about land being stolen. Ask the natives of South America about land being stolen.
But I said resources, which is more than just land. It's minerals and the rights to mine them given over to colonial corporations at the point of a gun, it's timber and oil and water and anything else that has even a glimmer of monetary value.
Regardless, you seem to cling to your stupidity like a man on the edge of a cliff clings to God, so desperate to be right you won't even try to save yourself. I'm done with you as well.
""
That got a response from me. You then saying "why are you talking to me" is moronic. As in something a moron would say.
... its like arguing with retarded chickens.
Explain please how the native american population in the US is suffering from over population, food shortages, etc?
They were genocided so it is impossible to cite them in this discussion with any relevance.
The question is not whether various nations did bad things to other nations in the past. That is obvious and beyond dispute. The issue is about populations etc. And on that basis, these citations are as besides the point as talking about how loudly your mother screams "Oh GOD" when she gets fucked in the ass.
Oh sorry was that rude? Get on fucking point. I can't nail you little idiots with a cattle prod when you get out of control so I'm damn well not going to pass up an opportunity to at least vent my frustration with your asinine commentary.
*laughs*
You just conceded and you're too stupid to realize it. Where do you morons come from?
Fuck off. Either cite a country with that information or you can't claim to know the spending. You say single payer spends less? My point was you have no fucking way of even knowing what you spend. You contradicted me... I said show me the numbers... you say you can't... You lose, motherfucker.
You said YOU knew. But you clearly either didn't understand what I was asking for or lied.
Either way... I have no patience for you. Fuck off.
the near future will make one of us wrong. Will you acknowledge your error if Reddit dies? Because I'll acknowledge mine if they start making money.
Reddit's future money making relies on them being THE place to set up a community. If it gets policed by progressive fuckwits then that is gone.
Again... you... disagree... we'll see.
Give me your complete estimation for a single payer society's healthcare costs that takes into consideration all subsidies.
Any country you like. You choose.
As to whether I believe in subsidies... I don't mind them so long as they're efficient, are implemented rationally, and the reasons for them are not merely political gamesmanship/handouts to political backers/any other kind of cynical ploy to increase power indifferent to the supposed issues at hand.
As to your admission that your argument was stupid... thank you for admitting your argument was stupid.
http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
Suck it, troll.
https://www.youtube.com/result...
Everything is there already, Neil. Just like everyone else... your crap is already on the internet. You can either get paid for it or not. Your choice.
But refusing to participate just means you don't get paid.
As to a hardened military target... a hardened military target can take... many... tons of TNT delivered to its surface.
You want to see a hardened military target?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I'm talking about targets built to take a hit and perhaps come out of it bloody... but grinning.
If you have an asteroid base with your facilities all in the core of the rock... then a ton of TNT exploding against the surface of the rock isn't going to be a knock out punch.
As to being unpredictable... Maybe I'm misunderstanding how this will work and you can't be sneaky. But my assumption was that you could. If you can be sneaky then you can be unpredictable.
As to the beam path... the foil you're hitting is going to be very hot and is going to show up clearly. The target will know what it is... and they'll therefore know that at the other end of it is the laser. And by simply drawing a line between the foil and the target... you can figure out exactly where that laser is right now. Then you fire something back at it.
Optics equipment is exposed to light... so if you fired a powerful laser right at their laser... you could probably destroy it more easily than most things just because its guts have to be exposed to even emit the laser in the first place. Any sort of defect in the lens of their laser is going to force them to shut it down immediately or their laser will destroy itself. You just need to damage it a bit and it will shut off. Then you can fire a something at the likely large target that is a good deal nastier than a bit of foil.
Explain to me why you're not interested in investigating or reforming the legal practices that lead to false convictions but are only interested in the frankly trite repetition of talking points that do nothing to address underlying problems?
That is what you're doing.
That isn't an ad hominem. If your dick is inside a sheep... I am not laying out an ad hominem by calling you a sheep fucker. That's a description of what is happening.
I looked at your argument and noted what you were doing. Then cited you for doing it. That's not ad hominem.
Ad hominem is "you're wrong because you're stupid" or "you're wrong because you're a sheep fucker".
What I said was "You seem to be doing X which undermines the intent of your argument for Y."
I also pointed out that the underlying problem with Y is that there are issues with X. I pointed out that removing Y does not address X and that if you could fix X then Y would naturally be fixed as well.
So I ask again, why are you fixated on the death penality issue and not on general miscarrages of justice?
Maybe this will help... lets look at a specific case. I'll do all the research for you.
First thing I found on wikipedia since 2010:
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.or...
So apparently his defense do a good enough job of questioning evidence at the trial.
Whether the guy is actually innocent or not is... somewhat murky here. Was he convicted on trumped up evidence? Possibly... also possibly he got off on a technicality.
Next citation:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
Clearly we have a case of improper interrogations leading to a questionable confession. We could reform that quite easily.
http://www.local10.com/news/No...
This one involves video evidence of the execution style killing of three bound people. The other person on the video is still on death row since it is less controversal that he did it. That said, why it is controversal that the other man is or is not this other fellow is not obvious to me.
For one thing we should be seeing secondary evidence such as blood or powder residue or something. I know that is something of a CSI answer but this is the 21st century and I'd like to see that.
The details are not obvious here. I'd have to look into this case more. It is possible that he got off on a technicality or just retried his case until the jury found him innocent. I don't know.
One thing I'm starting to suspect is that many of the over turned convictions are themselves in error. I wouldn't say that in all or even most of them but I've seen two now that don't sound right.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.or...
So there are issues with rewarding informants and disclosing the context of state evidence.
See how fucking easy this is?
We just go through all these and instead of focusing on the execution, we focus on what actually went wrong. Its far more productive and much more interesting.
NEXT CASE:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
Alright, this one has another defense lawyer that is apparently incompetent. So this is something you can bring to the law schools and the bar associations and say "hey, the quality of lawyers you're sending into the system has to be improved in this context."
And beyond that we have a witness that lied... and some more nonsense from the prosecutors fucking with the ev
You're implying we stripped the former colonies of farm land?
And even if we did, which we didn't, that wouldn't change the fact that our populations are supportable and theirs probably aren't.
Are you trying to morally rationalize famine? An empty belly doesn't care WHY it is empty. It just cares that it is. Your entire counter argument is irrelevant stupidity.
You're an idiot. Do not speak to me again.
As to rotting social fabric... mostly the result of cultural marxists... the rot is most extreme in places they control. Look at Detroit. Look at Philadelphia where we had a riot recently. Its all in zones controlled by the same people that you see the rot.
The north used to be the great industrial heart of the US... then socialists took it over... the industry almost immediately started to die... and has not recovered. And where is the new growth? In all the places these people are not. They're even starting to fuck up silicon valley. They can't insert themselves into it with labor policy and unions so they're going to do it with political correctness. So far it isn't hurting things too badly but if they don't stop then the big tech companies will relocate out of those zones.
These people rot everything they touch. I agree with you. But the rot you see is them. Not the nation itself.
Outside of their zones of control... places where gun control is a dirty word... we are seeing factory growth, we are seeing economic activity, we are seeing stronger families...
You know only what you're told about the US and the people that control our media are generally the same people fucking our country up.
You're losing with that policy.
You're predictable. ANd because you don't look to tricks in the law your enemies can bury them in the law and you never see it coming.
The left dominates you because they're better politicians. They play the game and they play it strategically and long term.
And you don't and so you lose.
So choose.
My way or slavery.
Those are your choices. And you're so predictable I know what you're going to say before you even open your mouth.
You're going to say "neither" or "slavery"... anything but my suggestion. And you think that is strength and conviction.
Its stubbornness and foolishness. Nothing more.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Actually capitalism has more meritocracy and upward mobility than any other system ever attempted.
As to capitalism being made for people to not rise then the old landed nobility would still rule us. They don't because you're wrong. Large portions of our elite are first generation elites. Not even hereditary. That is unique of any system before it and that includes your marxist bullshit that just made the government ministers into the new nobility in any country it was tried. So sure, you get some mobility during the revolution itself and then you get stagnation again worse than anything in capitalism.
As to this notion that you're going to violently overthrow the country in the name of marxism... Go for it.
*loads shotgun*
I am begging you to try. Please.
Do it now. Don't wait.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Please. Do it. Pull the trigger. I want you to do it.
This stupid dream you have here was admitted to be stupid even by marxists as early as the 1920s. They knew that wasn't going to happen.
Which is why we've been enduring their plan B ever since... the cultural marxists. Of which you are little more than a useful idiot for...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... ... You used the word logical... explain how it is logical to do what you said?
Explain your reasoning... LOGICALLY.
*gets popcorn*
My records go back farther and they show 4 percent. Which is still too high.
The issue however is not the execution by why we're getting false convictions.
Your indifference to why we're getting false convictions implies you don't care about justice but rather have simply fixated on a talking point and wish to make an issue out of capital punishment while ignoring that the cause of the problem is not the execution but some flaw in the judicial process that not only effects executions but all convictions.
No, i'm not being argumentative... I'm defeating your argument against me.
There's a difference. Are you being argumentative?
We are having an argument... So sure... from that stand point we're both inherently argumentative.
Look, if you want play word games with me, you'll find I'm probably a lot better at it than you are. Its a skill I have. But if you want to have a rational discussion then you're going to have to let that go.
You don't a point by playing word games. That's just semantical nonsense.
You win an argument by proving to whomever matters to you that you were right and they were wrong.
Now... on the internet... generally that's just yourself. If you think you were right then you are going to declare victory. We all do that and we really have no choice because we argue against people that will just be stubborn when they lose. So you have to just take what you can and move on.
In the context of this discussion... people said I didn't have a right to an opinion because I didn't have an aeronautical degree.
That's an obvious fallacy and one that I defeated not by arguing the illogic by by potinting out that even if it weren't an irrational argument, that it would still be wrong because the idea was popularized by people with such degrees.
now if you want to have a discussion about economics etc... we can do that, but its going to boil down to you saying that we can't do a thing because we don't currently do it that way.
Most of the economic barriers are about sunk costs of existing infrastructure. You do things a different way and lots of things have to be redesigned.
Frankly I don't really care about this argument anymore. Instead of thinking about something interesting you decided to be a prick and a stupid one at that.
So fine. You disagree and you apparently don't like me. Fine... I don't really care. You're boring and you brought nothing of interest to the discussion. You failed to enlighten anyone, show a new way of thinking, add new information, or add any value to the people that were here.
If that's what you consider to be success... then so be it.
... you're not even using the quotation properly.
Are we just quoting random things back at each other that have no contextual relevance?
Okay:
No legacy is so rich as honesty.
William Shakespeare
... Always? That happened a few times. And often as not when it does the wealth is just coopted by a new aristocracy.
Do you want to start going through examples throughout history? You're going to rhetorically raped... but you should be used to that by now.
The inequality can't harm mobility unless you literally can't get a job.
Mobility isn't about how much you make but about how much you COULD make. Its not a question of equality of outcome but equality of opportunity.
Paying people 1000 times other people doesn't mean you can't make that money.
What harms mobility is changing circumstances so that people can't get work and can't even break into an industry.
And that isn't an issue of paying people a lot. That is rather an issue of artificial barriers to employment and advancement.
Now... some of those are unavoidable. But a lot of them are the result of bad government laws.
Think about it... its gotten WORSE the more you've tinkered with the labor market. Almost every change has resulted in a statistical reduction in employment and an increase in the inequality.
Consider that the best way forward might be to go back to what we had before. Would you trade the labor participation in 2015 with the labor participation in 1950? Its possible. But you'd have to kill a lot of bad programs and be quite ruthless about it.
They already hate us to the extent they ever will. That's a zero sum game.
Removing the sanctions doesn't make them stop hating us. It just makes them more able to act on that hate.
As to forever... no... they are already or were already showing serious signs of cracking in the next 10 to 20 years. Their youth population are on the internet. They don't regard their own government as being much better than we do.
And as to the economy... their business interests are not happy either.
You assume that the people will just sympathize wtih the government.
Iran is not north korea. A lot of what they do is not popular with their people.
The idea here would be to keep pressure until they crack.
Look at what happened to the USSR. It takes TIME. You have to be willing to hold them under and wait for them to stop thrashing... then wait for the brain to die. Ruthless? Yes. But it avoids war and gets us to the same place.
You don't know that. The transition from farm workers to factory workers was not instant and it was not easy.
This automation thing is just getting started. It will take a couple generations to sort things out.
And I'd point out that making it harder to hire people and more expensive to hire people and giving people that aren't even trying to get jobs welfare isn't helping.
If you want a faster transition, then you need to lower the risk and cost of hiring people. Lower the regulations, adjust the whole healthcare paradigm, and you need to let employers fire people if they deem that to be in the interest of their business. Otherwise businesses have to go through a lot of hoops and it just makes the whole process of hiring people a hassle.
Understand. The market doesn't stop at the super market.
Employees are basically products... commodities. If something isn't selling well then you need to look at your marketing, you need to look at your product quality, you need to look at your costs, and your need to look at your competition.
Here you're going to say "people aren't products"... to the market they are. You're basically arguing with the Sun on that issue to quote the old Roman saying. The market isn't something you can reason with... it is an unconscious intelligence. A self organizing self evolving system... with no awareness. The "invisible hand". If you want it to buy something... your labor for example... then you need to offer that labor in a way that is attractive in the market OR it is not in the interests of the businesses to hire you any more than it is in your interest to buy a car that is too expensive or poor quality or something.
I appreciate you want people to have a better life. I appreciate your good intentions. However... we both know what the road to hell is paved with... the intentions aren't worth much. They just aren't. I know that's tough... but that's reality.
If you want to help people then you need to improve their value in the market.
I believe we can do that. I believe we can make countries with falling labor participation have a turn around. BUT... there is a price. And that price is that you have to stop thinking in Marxist terms about what people AUGHT to do and instead focus on the marketability of people so that you make it in the interest of other market players to THROW money at these people.
You need to lower the cost and risk of hiring labor.
And while you're at it, stop bad mouthing the labor force. A day doesn't go by when we're not told how stupid the labor force is... how lazy they are... how the jobs they're losing are not hte jobs they want to do in the first place. A lot of that comes out of the government itself.
And while we're at it, we could stop sabotaging the public school system. That is going to mean firing bad teachers. That is going to mean compartmentalizing schools and letting bad schools DIE and good schools stand as examples of how not to fuck up. That means no more "too big to fail" school boards. Not unified school boards. No more promoting failed teachers into administration. No more "rubber rooms" where teachers that are known to be incompetent are kept doing make work because it is impossible to fire them.
If you CARE about the labor force more than your political advantage... you'll do this. If you don't... then the talk about helping the workers is just a pretense.
You read but you do not understand... you are baffled.
They're not smearing words. They're descriptive.
I would be like me saying your use of conservative christian or something was a smearing word. It isn't is it? Is democrat or republican or pineapple or spoon a smearing word? Or does it simply describe the thing?
Only progressives do this... this attempt to gaslight people in conversations by controlling language. You redefine words, prevent people from using words, and then use your own little buzz words to control the conversation.
I won't permit it. I am too rhetorically advanced to find such childish word games anything but laughable defenses. You don't get to decide which words I use and I will not permit you to redefine yourself or other concepts when they become toxic through the known history of what similar ideologues have done through time. If you want your ideology to have a less toxic image then stop being insufferable shitheads.
As to marx having good ideas... tell me one of them that is both good and original. Because whenever someone tells me marx had a good idea it either turns out to be laughably horrible or something about as interesting as "ketchup goes well with french fries"... aka nothing you could actually attribute to marx in the first place.
So tell me his good ideas.
As to socialism, lets not conflate the rabble with the ideologues. What the masses believe about anything has little influence on what an ideology is really about and what they want to happen is often not what actually happens. In the US, how many people actually read the federalist papers? Too few. How many of them actually inform themselves of legislation through congress or the various interest groups that ultimately legislation through the system? Almost none. So what do they know? The same is true in europe.
We've too many peasants in our societies. People that like to be led. They are the cannon fodder for ideologies like your own and they are the greatest threat to those few of us that are wish to be free but don't want to dominate people.
At the risk of sounding trite, there are three types of people on this world. Those that like to dominate people. Those that like to be dominated. And those that wish to be free.
My country was a government of the free, for the free, and by the free. Yes... the literal chattel slavery of Africans... but at the time they were not even believed to be properly human. A convenient dodge perhaps but philosophically valid in the context of the political system if it had been true. It was later found to not be true thus the justification for it became unsupportable.
So lets focus on the academics and the ideologues please. And expect me be fully ready for any word games. Let us not conflate the various joe six packs that join any group without especially understanding anything.
As to the failure of the working classes to rise up... yep. Which is when the cultural marxists started whispering in our ears.
https://youtu.be/b3w6c7RUbUs?t...
Dramatic? Sure. But accurate. This increasing fascination with political correctness is direct from them. Who came up with that term? The Eastern Europeans recognize it. Its a part of the system. Control the language. Control the thoughts. Control the history.