The topic here is you. It's not about economic systems, because you're not actually saying anything of merit, or insight, or use. What's more interesting is what you think you're accomplishing with your juvenile hand-waving on the subject. Claiming that communism doesn't work, but that it's OK if you just use if for part of the day, is ridiculous. Even someone who doesn't understand how to use capital letters knows that, so your urge to sound nuanced and sophisticated on the subject while not actually contributing anything is a curious personality quirk, I suppose. It's sort of like your lengthy but completely upside-down routine pontificating on constitutional matters - you know you're BS-ing, but you do it anyway because you like to hear yourself do it, I guess.
No, it's not. Economic systems either embrace collectivism, or they don't. One or the other. On or off. Binary. Trying to soft-pedal it by saying that you're born into collective slavery but only for part of your day is just craven intellectual laziness that's attempting to look the other way.
you can understand why there was even communist revolutions in the first place: people don't like being treated as slaves
Right. They want to treat OTHER people as slaves. That's what the collectivist instinct and world view demands, regardless of how diluted it is. Fair-weather socialists are no different than kill-'em-by-the-millions totalitarian communists. They operate from the same place: you are born owing someone else your labor. The "social safety net" is the starter drug for all of the usual Nanny State spectrum disorders, and it always, always, always results in growing dependency paid for by a dwindling number of actual producers. Your "middle road" is just a spineless way of still expecting other people to be your slaves, but to avoid talking about it in plain language. Your social safety net is a mandatory debt you assign to other people. If they don't go to work part of each day to provide you the safety you want for yourself, you use the rules of your benign-sounding middle road to seize their property and send them to jail. It doesn't matter if you only think they should work for you for part of the day, or if you prefer the full-on everyone works for the state model - you're still advocating coerced labor by other people for your comfort. And you wonder why people push back? It's because they don't want to be your slaves, not even for just part of the day.
I have Chinese neighbours and they're showing me new (to me) stuff all the time
You mean like how grinding up the horn of a rhinoceros and eating it will fix erectile dysfunction because, you know, horns are sort of phallic looking, and if there are only a few of the animals left in the world, it's a sure sign that their horns must be really really effective? Yeah, that's how Chinese medicine operates. It's almost entirely placebo effect, and... shocking!... Chinese people die of cancer every day.
Has it ever occurred to you that some people simply don't agree with your take on things. You know, people who, personally - just like you - have looked at the facts of the matter and arrived at a different opinion? Your own view must be weak indeed if you have to result to that sort of fantasizing in order to make yourself feel better about it.
the actual enemies we have now use twitter and guerilla tactics
So... the actual enemies are using twitter and "guerilla" tactics to seize towns, line up rows of insufficiently Islamist locals and lopping their heads off, that sort of thing? The Russians are using twitter to take over Ukraine? Are those Twitter-powered tanks being driven across those borders? Are they using Twitter to shoot down aircraft? Is Iran supplying Twitter-based ordinance to its proxies across the middle east, and using those Twitter-munitions when they kill people?
So, pretty much you think this is a comic book, not real life involving actual people.
In your imaginary fantasy world, wouldn't the incredibly corrupt fantasy villains your'e dreaming up simply have done any of a thousand possible things to more effectively deal with this guy? No? Right, because you're fantasizing.
Why do you want to say he's wrong? You weren't happy with the voice recordings, and with people on the phone with their own family members as those events unfolded on the flight? If you want him to be wrong, it's because you want what happened to have occurred differently for some reason of your own agenda.
The problem is illegal immigrants do not get visas, since they are illegal by definition.
You're not paying attention. The topic at hand are the people who enter the country legally with a visa, and then decide to illegally overstay their visa, becoming illegal immigrants, by definition.
There's a minor problem with this plan. The ones who come here illegally? They don't have visas. That's what makes their coming here illegal. If they have a visa, then they came here legally.
You're completely missing the point. He's addressing the large number of people who legally enter (with a visa), but illegally overstay their visas, this becoming illegal immigrants. The people who illegally enter are a related, but different specific problem.
Yup, sure enough. More ad hominem snark instead of addressing the substance of the matter. You know perfectly well that the WaPo isn't the way you characterize it, but rather than point to persuasive information to defend your position, you're just dishing out the juvenile foot-stamping. Still, if that's the way you concede that the person you're being shrill at is actually correct, so be it.
So, just another dose of your typical snark in order to avoid actually addressing reality. That pretty well covers it, as usual. Thanks for conceding the point, even if it's done in your usual ad hominem format.
Oh bla bla bla. You are just rationalizing the absurd.
Yes, it is absurd that people become violent and crazy, and they do things like hold hostages or grab kids or attack people, or force stand-offs. If people wouldn't do absurd crap like that, then the absurd crap like that they do wouldn't happen right in front of us every week. The fact that you're pretending it doesn't happen is curious though. What do you think that achieves? It's an odd personality quirk, at least.
Out of curiosity, what do you think you're actually gaining with the juvenile drama queen theatrical stuff? Really, I'm genuinely curious what that does for you.
You really stand tall for all this authoritarian shit
I see. So if one of YOUR family members is being held or threatened by some loon, you'd rather that member of your family get hurt than the cops use a taser to subdue the person who's the problem? Or would you rather they use lethal force? Or would you rather they simply walk away so that nobody can accuse them of being "authoritarian," using any sort of force against a person who, after all, hasn't yet killed your family member, he's just promising to if anyone comes close to him.
You don't actually understand what "authoritarian" means, do you?
Why is it ridiculous? Why would you NOT (if it's logistically reasonable) use a small tracked RC machine on the ground to roll into one of those classic and recurring crazy-person-barricade-gun-waving scenarios, and taser that clown remotely instead of risking the life of one or more police officers? Likewise, if the circumstances happen to fit, why wouldn't you do that from 10 feet over the guy's head?
And if you've got that same crazy guy holed up somewhere and you need to flush him out... why would you shoot potentially incendiary tear gas shells (which can also be lethal if they happen to, say, catch you right in the head in the wrong way as they come through a window) the old fashioned way, if you can send in a flying robot that can just let loose with the same substance while also seeing what's going on.
Ridiculous is as ridiculous does. If you're saying we shouldn't have the tools because some people don't use tools wisely, then we should take away cars, guns, flashlights, tasers, pepper spray, shoes, radios, and probably fingers and hands from all police just because there's the chance that some officer will choose to use them the wrong way.
Slashdot Mirror
you don't understand the topic
The topic here is you. It's not about economic systems, because you're not actually saying anything of merit, or insight, or use. What's more interesting is what you think you're accomplishing with your juvenile hand-waving on the subject. Claiming that communism doesn't work, but that it's OK if you just use if for part of the day, is ridiculous. Even someone who doesn't understand how to use capital letters knows that, so your urge to sound nuanced and sophisticated on the subject while not actually contributing anything is a curious personality quirk, I suppose. It's sort of like your lengthy but completely upside-down routine pontificating on constitutional matters - you know you're BS-ing, but you do it anyway because you like to hear yourself do it, I guess.
this is objectively true
No, it's not. Economic systems either embrace collectivism, or they don't. One or the other. On or off. Binary. Trying to soft-pedal it by saying that you're born into collective slavery but only for part of your day is just craven intellectual laziness that's attempting to look the other way.
you can understand why there was even communist revolutions in the first place: people don't like being treated as slaves
Right. They want to treat OTHER people as slaves. That's what the collectivist instinct and world view demands, regardless of how diluted it is. Fair-weather socialists are no different than kill-'em-by-the-millions totalitarian communists. They operate from the same place: you are born owing someone else your labor. The "social safety net" is the starter drug for all of the usual Nanny State spectrum disorders, and it always, always, always results in growing dependency paid for by a dwindling number of actual producers. Your "middle road" is just a spineless way of still expecting other people to be your slaves, but to avoid talking about it in plain language. Your social safety net is a mandatory debt you assign to other people. If they don't go to work part of each day to provide you the safety you want for yourself, you use the rules of your benign-sounding middle road to seize their property and send them to jail. It doesn't matter if you only think they should work for you for part of the day, or if you prefer the full-on everyone works for the state model - you're still advocating coerced labor by other people for your comfort. And you wonder why people push back? It's because they don't want to be your slaves, not even for just part of the day.
Let me guess. That person also works from home and makes $10,000 a month using one simple trick, right?
I have Chinese neighbours and they're showing me new (to me) stuff all the time
You mean like how grinding up the horn of a rhinoceros and eating it will fix erectile dysfunction because, you know, horns are sort of phallic looking, and if there are only a few of the animals left in the world, it's a sure sign that their horns must be really really effective? Yeah, that's how Chinese medicine operates. It's almost entirely placebo effect, and ... shocking! ... Chinese people die of cancer every day.
cannabis cures CANCER
Man, the stoners really will pitch any ridiculous meme they can latch on to, won't they?
Crowd sourcing years of clinical trials. What could possibly go wrong.
Has it ever occurred to you that some people simply don't agree with your take on things. You know, people who, personally - just like you - have looked at the facts of the matter and arrived at a different opinion? Your own view must be weak indeed if you have to result to that sort of fantasizing in order to make yourself feel better about it.
None of that requires more than F-15s to solve, and lots of politics. Something that may be beyond your capacity to understand.
Why do you need an F15 to solve attacks made with Twitter?
the actual enemies we have now use twitter and guerilla tactics
So ... the actual enemies are using twitter and "guerilla" tactics to seize towns, line up rows of insufficiently Islamist locals and lopping their heads off, that sort of thing? The Russians are using twitter to take over Ukraine? Are those Twitter-powered tanks being driven across those borders? Are they using Twitter to shoot down aircraft? Is Iran supplying Twitter-based ordinance to its proxies across the middle east, and using those Twitter-munitions when they kill people?
So, pretty much you think this is a comic book, not real life involving actual people.
In your imaginary fantasy world, wouldn't the incredibly corrupt fantasy villains your'e dreaming up simply have done any of a thousand possible things to more effectively deal with this guy? No? Right, because you're fantasizing.
Why do you want to say he's wrong? You weren't happy with the voice recordings, and with people on the phone with their own family members as those events unfolded on the flight? If you want him to be wrong, it's because you want what happened to have occurred differently for some reason of your own agenda.
He is facing persecution for practicing journalism. Open your eyes
No, he's facing some heat for Sweden over dodging investigators looking into his alleged sexual abuse of two women.
Assange wasn't going to prison in Sweden, he was going directly to Gitmo, without trial, or habeus.
Where - in that tween fantasy novel you're writing?
The problem is illegal immigrants do not get visas, since they are illegal by definition.
You're not paying attention. The topic at hand are the people who enter the country legally with a visa, and then decide to illegally overstay their visa, becoming illegal immigrants, by definition.
Are you really that confused about the difference between someone's ethnic heritage and the things they choose to do, as individuals or cultures?
There's a minor problem with this plan. The ones who come here illegally? They don't have visas. That's what makes their coming here illegal. If they have a visa, then they came here legally.
You're completely missing the point. He's addressing the large number of people who legally enter (with a visa), but illegally overstay their visas, this becoming illegal immigrants. The people who illegally enter are a related, but different specific problem.
Yup, sure enough. More ad hominem snark instead of addressing the substance of the matter. You know perfectly well that the WaPo isn't the way you characterize it, but rather than point to persuasive information to defend your position, you're just dishing out the juvenile foot-stamping. Still, if that's the way you concede that the person you're being shrill at is actually correct, so be it.
So, just another dose of your typical snark in order to avoid actually addressing reality. That pretty well covers it, as usual. Thanks for conceding the point, even if it's done in your usual ad hominem format.
I would absolutely, without reservation, shoot those down.
Enjoy that federal felony conviction.
Not an opinion, but a fact. They say what the government wants them to say. They are out pushing for war with the worst of them.
So what you're saying is that you don't actually read the Washington Post, and are just making stuff up.
Oh bla bla bla. You are just rationalizing the absurd.
Yes, it is absurd that people become violent and crazy, and they do things like hold hostages or grab kids or attack people, or force stand-offs. If people wouldn't do absurd crap like that, then the absurd crap like that they do wouldn't happen right in front of us every week. The fact that you're pretending it doesn't happen is curious though. What do you think that achieves? It's an odd personality quirk, at least.
Out of curiosity, what do you think you're actually gaining with the juvenile drama queen theatrical stuff? Really, I'm genuinely curious what that does for you.
You really stand tall for all this authoritarian shit
I see. So if one of YOUR family members is being held or threatened by some loon, you'd rather that member of your family get hurt than the cops use a taser to subdue the person who's the problem? Or would you rather they use lethal force? Or would you rather they simply walk away so that nobody can accuse them of being "authoritarian," using any sort of force against a person who, after all, hasn't yet killed your family member, he's just promising to if anyone comes close to him.
You don't actually understand what "authoritarian" means, do you?
Why is it ridiculous? Why would you NOT (if it's logistically reasonable) use a small tracked RC machine on the ground to roll into one of those classic and recurring crazy-person-barricade-gun-waving scenarios, and taser that clown remotely instead of risking the life of one or more police officers? Likewise, if the circumstances happen to fit, why wouldn't you do that from 10 feet over the guy's head?
... why would you shoot potentially incendiary tear gas shells (which can also be lethal if they happen to, say, catch you right in the head in the wrong way as they come through a window) the old fashioned way, if you can send in a flying robot that can just let loose with the same substance while also seeing what's going on.
And if you've got that same crazy guy holed up somewhere and you need to flush him out
Ridiculous is as ridiculous does. If you're saying we shouldn't have the tools because some people don't use tools wisely, then we should take away cars, guns, flashlights, tasers, pepper spray, shoes, radios, and probably fingers and hands from all police just because there's the chance that some officer will choose to use them the wrong way.