by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics

Advertisement

Search

Search

[+] Advanced...

Author:

Region:

Sort:

«12. . .1,0921,0931,0941,0951,0961,0971,098. . .2,1802,181»

The-CID wrote: the key for their success is "Culture".

No, it's taxes. Really, it is. Ask any of the liberals. :)

Oobleck wrote:No, it's taxes. Really, it is. Ask any of the liberals. :)

Hi, liberal here. It's not taxes.

Paralympic Games: Four 1500m runners finish faster than Rio Olympics gold medal winning time.

1) Abdellatif Baka (Algeria) crossed the line with a time of 3´48.29 seconds to win gold. He set a new Paralympic world record, but also, stands as the fastest 1500m time over both the Olympic and Paralympic Games.
2) Ethiopia’s Tamiru Demisse claimed silver with a time of 3´48.49 seconds.
3) Kenya’s Henry Kirwa got the bronze with a time of 3´49.59 seconds.
4) Baka’s brother, Fouad Baka, finished fourth in a time of 3´49.84 seconds.

All four of them beat American Olympic champion Centrowicz, who only managed 3´50.00 seconds at the Olympic Games last month (and won the gold medal).
-------------------------------------------------

This could be the definition of "Personal success"... or maybe "Doping scandal"...

Go away progressives, Big freedom, and Fun is fun

Metacrisis wrote:Hi, liberal here. It's not taxes.

Go sit in your safe space :p

Do you want to buy some illegal memes

The securities and exchange commission

Only if they are pepes.

Individual thought patterns

Fun is fun wrote:Do you want to buy some illegal memes

Does that include a sinister evil racist Russian frog?

Individual thought patterns wrote:Does that include a sinister evil racist Russian frog?

Why yes it does

Go away progressives

The-CID wrote:I agree, the key is "Culture".
As a Capitalist, I am against high taxes, since I believe a low tax rate should be enough in order to ensure the most important responsibilities a country must provide: Justice, Police, Business guidelines, welfare in special scenarios, basic education, etc.
By the other hand, Nordic Countries are famous for their high tax rate... and they have relative few problems: the key for their success is "Culture".

The Nordic countries are changing - low crime Sweden is changing into high crime Sweden (the same thing will happen in Minnesota - check out the Twin Cities).

By the way Sweden did not use to be high tax - for many decades its taxes were lower than those of Britain. Remember it sat out both World Wars - thus profiting from them (selling to all sides) and avoiding massive debts.

Even back when Sweden signed alliances they were not worth anything - as the Danes found (to their cost) way back in 1864.

Of course in the United States the Federal Government has no, Constitutional, power over such things as education and poor relief - but the days when the Constitution was respected are long past.

Mrs Clinton and Mr Trump constantly promise-promise-promise - they promise the Moon and Stars.

The limited government Constitutional United States might as well be in a different geological period.

Dogs should be able to vote.
Opinions?

The free market republic

Kaputer wrote:Dogs should be able to vote.
Opinions?

Not a good idea. Gives a higher chance that you will get crappy leaders.

Go away progressives wrote:....

The limited government Constitutional United States might as well be in a different geological period.

The Enlightenment skipped a few generations and most of what we now call the developing world. It was a rare time. Trump and Clinton are at least successors to this tradition or neither of them would qualify for leadership in the first place.

I doubt either of them know or care about Montesquieu, Kant, Rousseau, or Locke. There again, I would imagine that few electors have any idea who those guys were or how they helped shape the modern world. You can't put critical thought into a hashtag so it's essentially obsolete in the political arena.

sup I am a classic liberal

Go away progressives

Go away progressives

The last time that the two main candidates for President of the United States were limited government Constitutionalists was in 1924 - Calvin Coolidge and Davis.

Since then ether one or both candidates have been unfit for the position of President of the United States - and this 2016 election is one where it is "both" who are unfit for the position. There "is a lot of ruin in a great nation" - a great nation can survive bad government for a long time, but I suspect that even the United States of America is getting to the limit of how much bad government it can stand.

There is nothing inevitable about decline - for example South Dakota was going down the tubes in the 1930s but then a Governor was elected who cut costs and got the State on a better path. For almost 40 years now South Dakota has been fairly well governed - whilst the Reservations within the State (such as Pine Ridge) remain collectivist Hell-zones with collective ownership of land (what Mr Obama weirdly says is "American - the land belonging to the people" thus turning American history, which is actually based on the private ownership of land, on its head) and "free" "public services" for the inmates (sorry the citizens) of the Reservations.

Only an "educated" person looking at places such as Pine Ridge could say "yes - collectivism is the way to go".

Go away progressives

Zenzibar wrote:The Enlightenment skipped a few generations and most of what we now call the developing world. It was a rare time. Trump and Clinton are at least successors to this tradition or neither of them would qualify for leadership in the first place.
I doubt either of them know or care about Montesquieu, Kant, Rousseau, or Locke. There again, I would imagine that few electors have any idea who those guys were or how they helped shape the modern world. You can't put critical thought into a hashtag so it's essentially obsolete in the political arena.

American politics is essentially John Locke (and Thomas Reid and so on - the Limited Government American Revolution) against Rousseau (the Big Government French Revolution). And Rousseau has been winning for a long time now.

God damn it, lice pesticides killed all the fishes, made the wealth gaps worse, incomes worse, higher taxes and killed my fishing industry

Tough to say who's winning. They're both just repeating their rhetoric time and again.

Funktopia wrote:Tough to say who's winning. They're both just repeating their rhetoric time and again.

"The only winning move is not to play."

I was dying during the debate. I mean, both made SOME good points here and there.. but overall, i trust Trump more so than Clinton.

But what i took away was, these next two debates are going to be hilarious

The stars in daylight and Edding

The debate was good at first where someone finally went after all of Secretary Clinton's bull, but then you realized holy hell it's Donald Trump I'm rooting for, and you just decide it's all screwed.

The stars in daylight and Metacrisis

Agent orange mostly just said nope. Hillary talked a bit more about policy. Who lost? Pretty much everyone voting in this election.

In the beginning, trump was kicking ass, then get got a bit too 'fired up'. Though, Clinton did make a few good points here and there.. but every online poll i saw had trump winning by a large margin

Go away progressives wrote:American politics is essentially John Locke (and Thomas Reid and so on - the Limited Government American Revolution) against Rousseau (the Big Government French Revolution). And Rousseau has been winning for a long time now.

I don't think Rousseau would recognise the effects of universal suffrage, of which he was a a champion. Keep in mind that the originators of the Enlightenment were not acquainted with industrialisation or the transformation of the elements of the economy. They didn't even know how railroads would influence the creation of "fish and chips" shops throughout England--the world's first fast-food joints. They had little understanding of the concentration of capital or the mobilisation of the elements of labour.

The ideals of the Enlightenment still shape the institutions of the West but not in a predictable way. I personally think that Rousseau and Locke alike would be delighted that we ordinary people--all of us descended from peasants and paupers--would have at our fingertips the tools of education, instant messaging, vast negotiating power in our work, and complete freedom of movement. Just to name a few.

In Locke's day you could be branded, whipped, or fined heavily for falling asleep on Sundays or failing to attend church. You could be publicly hanged for petty shoplifting in Rousseau's day. And that was in the civilised world.

Edding

Go away progressives

Zenzibar wrote:I don't think Rousseau would recognise the effects of universal suffrage, of which he was a a champion. Keep in mind that the originators of the Enlightenment were not acquainted with industrialisation or the transformation of the elements of the economy. They didn't even know how railroads would influence the creation of "fish and chips" shops throughout England--the world's first fast-food joints. They had little understanding of the concentration of capital or the mobilisation of the elements of labour.
The ideals of the Enlightenment still shape the institutions of the West but not in a predictable way. I personally think that Rousseau and Locke alike would be delighted that we ordinary people--all of us descended from peasants and paupers--would have at our fingertips the tools of education, instant messaging, vast negotiating power in our work, and complete freedom of movement. Just to name a few.
In Locke's day you could be branded, whipped, or fined heavily for falling asleep on Sundays or failing to attend church. You could be publicly hanged for petty shoplifting in Rousseau's day. And that was in the civilised world.

Rousseau supported everyone having the vote - as long as they voted the way he wanted them to. If people opposed what Rousseau believed then this was "pride" not "self love", the "will of all" not the true "General Will". Then the "Lawgiver" (really Rousseau himself) should do what "the people" "really" wanted - even if the people said they did NOT want it (much like the un elected judges who make-stuff-up ignoring the actual written Constitution of the United States).

It is very much like Karl Marx - "false consciousness" and all that.

The French Revolutionaries (who killed hundreds of thousands of mostly ORDINARY people - not just aristocrats, see the historical works of Doyle on the French Revolution) were the same - they claimed to represent "the people", but they did not allow free and honest elections, in case the peasants voted the "wrong" way against their "true interests".

My point was not about the criminal justice system - both John Locke and J.J. Rousseau would not have liked the punishments you describe. My point was about LIMITED GOVERNMENT versus UNLIMITED GOVERNMENT.

Huh. Apparently I'm in the top 1% of most influential people worldwide. Is that just from staying in the same region for so long, or should I expect everyone to bow down to my glory?

«12. . .1,0921,0931,0941,0951,0961,0971,098. . .2,1802,181»

Advertisement