Talk-Polywell.org

Sarah Hoyt gets it:
http://accordingtohoyt.com/2013/02/13/drinking-their-own-ink/
I live in the same neighborhood that our aristos do. I've seen them closeup and had to argue until my face is blue and I still can't pop the bubble they exist in. The country is stuck in the mode of thought created in the Ivy Covered Snob Factories and they haven't had a new idea in fifty years or so.

Jccarlton wrote:Sarah Hoyt gets it:
http://accordingtohoyt.com/2013/02/13/drinking-their-own-ink/
I live in the same neighborhood that our aristos do. I've seen them closeup and had to argue until my face is blue and I still can't pop the bubble they exist in. The country is stuck in the mode of thought created in the Ivy Covered Snob Factories and they haven't had a new idea in fifty years or so.

Reality is for the little people.

MSimon wrote:Reality is for the little people.

Only until other people's money runs out, or other leftist denials result in the inevitable wailing and gnashing of teeth. Then Reality asserts itself with a Vengeance.

The black market is what enables socialism to survive. It has delayed the collapse of the European Union (all that illegal labor used to cut costs and even just to get the work done). Illegal immigrant labor has kept price inflation in check in the US. Even politicians and aristos understand this. Truly black humor.

hanelyp wrote:

MSimon wrote:Reality is for the little people.

Only until other people's money runs out, or other leftist denials result in the inevitable wailing and gnashing of teeth. Then Reality asserts itself with a Vengeance.

One of our big problems is that we have two socialist parties. One uses the justification of "fairness" the other touts "morality" both have a one size fits all mentality. Note that the above is about economic issues and not a morality common to all human societies (murder, theft, deception in contract, etc.). What I include in socialist "morality" is things like: "should trade in alcohol be legal?"

MSimon wrote:

hanelyp wrote:

MSimon wrote:Reality is for the little people.

Only until other people's money runs out, or other leftist denials result in the inevitable wailing and gnashing of teeth. Then Reality asserts itself with a Vengeance.

One of our big problems is that we have two socialist parties. One uses the justification of "fairness" the other touts "morality" both have a one size fits all mentality. Note that the above is about economic issues and not a morality common to all human societies (murder, theft, deception in contract, etc.). What I include in socialist "morality" is things like: "should trade in alcohol be legal?"

More accurately, we have a socialist and a fascist party. Who sez we won WWII?

MSimon wrote:
One of our big problems is that we have two socialist parties. One uses the justification of "fairness" the other touts "morality" both have a one size fits all mentality.

Here you go again, with this tired and nonsensical canard. Among other erroneous assumptions is your contention that one side touts "fairness" and the other touts "morality." You fail to note that they both tout morality, they just have a different comprehensions of what that entails.


ALL LAWS ARE ENFORCED MORALITY.

MSimon wrote: Note that the above is about economic issues and not a morality common to all human societies (murder, theft, deception in contract, etc.). What I include in socialist "morality" is things like: "should trade in alcohol be legal?"

Yes, it has long been obvious that you define terms to mean what YOU want them to mean, rather than what is their correct and historical meaning.

Since you brought up the Alcohol issue, I want to show you something I saw today. As you probably know, the Suffragette movement was completely intertwined with the Temperance movement. The 18th and 19th amendments were supported and instantiated by the same groups of people. Here is a "Vinegar" Valentine from the Early 1900s.






As a general rule, I think most women are foolish, and their contribution to the election of various personages in history I classify as having ill served the nation. Were it up to me, I would have made the ability to vote completely contingent upon whether one is a contributor or not. I think that contributors are far more likely to be sensible people than are none contributors, women or otherwise.

KitemanSA wrote:

MSimon wrote:
One of our big problems is that we have two socialist parties. One uses the justification of "fairness" the other touts "morality" both have a one size fits all mentality. Note that the above is about economic issues and not a morality common to all human societies (murder, theft, deception in contract, etc.). What I include in socialist "morality" is things like: "should trade in alcohol be legal?"

More accurately, we have a socialist and a fascist party. Who sez we won WWII?

Though your comment is ambiguous, it can be deduced on it's face to be wrong.

Assuming you are labeling the Democrats as Fascists, it would then falsely portray the Republicans as Socialists, which is incorrect. They are the strongest opponents of Socialism in America currently. (Though they aren't putting up much of a fight so far.)


Assuming you are labeling the Republicans as Fascists, and the Democrats as Socialists, you would be even further wrong. Most likely your comment is just a rant at people who behave like grownups.

Well if we are going to have enforced morality in America I prefer sharia.

Jews and Christians will be taxed extra and atheists will get killed.

That will fix a whole slew of moral problems. Dontcha think?

Thirty lashes for wiping your ass with the wrong hand. And honor killings will be properly respected.

And alcohol prohibition. An extremely good idea.

You know D every time you start in with that stuff it makes me want to support the Democrats even more than I already do. I like their idea of morality. One of which appears to be "whip the Republicans into submission". Excellent.

MSimon wrote:Well if we are going to have enforced morality in America I prefer sharia.

We have always had enforced morality. That is the essence of Law.



Your argument is that we should swap one version for another.

MSimon wrote: Jews and Christians will be taxed extra and atheists will get killed.

If we start with People like Bill Maher, I might actually like this system. Evangelical atheists are more annoying than Jehovah Witnesses.

MSimon wrote: That will fix a whole slew of moral problems. Dontcha think?

It might very well, but it probably wouldn't be an improvement on what we have now.

MSimon wrote: Thirty lashes for wiping your ass with the wrong hand. And honor killings will be properly respected.

And alcohol prohibition. An extremely good idea.

If you say so. I personally think it's kooky to adopt a system designed for desert dwellers, but that's just me. It's like saying "don't waste water" when you live on a lake house.

If you say so. I personally think it's kooky to adopt a system designed for desert dwellers, but that's just me. It's like saying "don't waste water" when you live on a lake house.

Well laws are about morality. Can't I promote the morality/laws I like?

BTW I love it that you are a public face of the Republican Party. Makes my job of destroying it much easier.

MSimon wrote:Well if we are going to have enforced morality in America I prefer sharia.

Jews and Christians will be taxed extra and atheists will get killed.

That will fix a whole slew of moral problems. Dontcha think?

Thirty lashes for wiping your ass with the wrong hand. And honor killings will be properly respected.

And alcohol prohibition. An extremely good idea.

It is strange you prescribe to a system the would result in your immediate execution because of your lifestyle.

KitemanSA wrote: More accurately, we have a socialist and a fascist party. Who sez we won WWII?

Not to mention there is a japanese car in almost every driveway.

MSimon wrote:You know D every time you start in with that stuff it makes me want to support the Democrats even more than I already do.

At this point I am convinced the United States needs a good overdose of Democrats. If you think i'm helping, I count that as a plus.



"Do you really want to jump? Do you really? Well, that's fine with me. Let's do it."

MSimon wrote: I like their idea of morality. One of which appears to be "whip the Republicans into submission". Excellent.

Yeah, they'll make the trains run on time, but you won't be liking where they go.