Home | Community | Message Board

Avalon Magic Plants
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | Next >  [ show all ]
InvisibleballsalsaMDiscord
Universally Loathed and Reviled
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 20,817
Loc: Foreign Lands
Re: Official Hillary vs Trump Debate Thread. [Re: Douglas Howard] * 1
    #23686234 - 09/28/16 11:19 AM (7 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Douglas Howard said:

Yes, if they knock off some of their unnecessary spending, like only teach the basic like Arithmetic, Reading and Spelling. and which that they will only need three teachers, and narrow the grade level by having students from ages to 5 thru 8 as one level and 9 thru 11 for the next and so on, like how some poor Asian's countries does it. That they start teaching 5 years old at college level with other children around their ages.... But Physical Education and other courses like Science, Cadet and History should be taken out. But if they want courses like those, and so then the parents should pay for them.  And they can have online schools that teaches children over the web that will save on transportation and electricity funding. But they still can have all of the rest of the courses that can be done online. And for Physical Education, just give each student a Jane Fonda's exercising video CD.  .




No. Just no.

:nohellno:  :nowaitstopdammit:  :kummeli:


--------------------


Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here


Extras: Unfilter Print Post Top
InvisibleballsalsaMDiscord
Universally Loathed and Reviled
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 20,817
Loc: Foreign Lands
Re: Official Hillary vs Trump Debate Thread. [Re: starfire_xes]
    #23686274 - 09/28/16 11:32 AM (7 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

starfire_xes said:
Quote:

relic said:
Quote:

Douglas Howard said:


Yes, if they knock off some of their unnecessary spending, like only teach the basic like Arithmetic, Reading and Spelling. and which that they will only need three teachers, and narrow the grade level by having students from ages to 5 thru 8 as one level and 9 thru 11 for the next and so on, like how some poor Asian's countries does it. That they start teaching 5 years old at college level with other children around their ages.... But Physical Education and other courses like Science, Cadet and History should be taken out. But if they want courses like those, and so then the parents should pay for them.  And they can have online schools that teaches children over the web that will save on transportation and electricity funding. But they still can have all of the rest of the courses that can be done online. And for Physical Education, just give each student a Jane Fonda's exercising video CD.  .





this is satire, right?

i'm pretty sure it's not, but i'm positive it should be.







Here, this graph shows how much massive federal spending and the Dept of Education have made a significant contribution to education.




thats an interesting graph, no doubt, but it has nothing to do with duddits' suggested approach.


--------------------


Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here


Extras: Unfilter Print Post Top
InvisibleballsalsaMDiscord
Universally Loathed and Reviled
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 20,817
Loc: Foreign Lands
Re: Official Hillary vs Trump Debate Thread. [Re: hostileuniverse]
    #23686400 - 09/28/16 12:14 PM (7 years, 3 months ago)

starfire's graph doesn't support your hypothesis.  It seems to show negligible differences in outcome under varying amounts of federal spending, except for science scores which dipped significantly in the Reagan years.  Maybe i'm reading it incorrectly?


--------------------


Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here


Extras: Unfilter Print Post Top
InvisibleballsalsaMDiscord
Universally Loathed and Reviled
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 20,817
Loc: Foreign Lands
Re: Official Hillary vs Trump Debate Thread. [Re: hostileuniverse] * 1
    #23686465 - 09/28/16 12:33 PM (7 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

hostileuniverse said:




Our ranking, in comparison to what we spend, doesn't add up

When did the US start slipping in world rank? I'll let you research that, and then research when the federal govt seized control of education




Your first graph here is of estimated improvement in increments of percent of 1 standard deviation.  In the 14 year span of this graph, the United States had and estimated improvement of 1.5%  The second graph appears to show that the U.S. spends the second most per student on K-12 education of the countries listed.  Based off of these graphs, it would appear that you are arguing that the federal governement spends too much money for meager improvements in outcome, a hypothesis that would be supported by starfire's graph above that initiated this interaction between us.  However, I thought that your contention was that
Quote:


Well, one things for sure, our shitty education system and infrastructure will only get worse the more federal centralized control they have over it.



A case which your own graphs don't seem to support, as the first is a measure of percent improvement.


--------------------


Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here


Extras: Unfilter Print Post Top
InvisibleballsalsaMDiscord
Universally Loathed and Reviled
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 20,817
Loc: Foreign Lands
Re: Official Hillary vs Trump Debate Thread. [Re: hostileuniverse]
    #23686522 - 09/28/16 12:47 PM (7 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

hostileuniverse said:
Quote:

ballsalsa said:
Quote:

hostileuniverse said:




Our ranking, in comparison to what we spend, doesn't add up

When did the US start slipping in world rank? I'll let you research that, and then research when the federal govt seized control of education




Your first graph here is of estimated improvement in increments of percent of 1 standard deviation.  In the 14 year span of this graph, the United States had and estimated improvement of 1.5%  The second graph appears to show that the U.S. spends the second most per student on K-12 education of the countries listed.  Based off of these graphs, it would appear that you are arguing that the federal governement spends too much money for meager improvements in outcome, a hypothesis that would be supported by starfire's graph above that initiated this interaction between us.  However, I thought that your contention was that
Quote:


Well, one things for sure, our shitty education system and infrastructure will only get worse the more federal centralized control they have over it.



A case which your own graphs don't seem to support, as the first is a measure of percent improvement.




Then please, explain to me why we rank so low compared to other countries when we spend almost the most per capita?

And if you just wanna obfuscate, please join Amira in the dunce corner




No, you explain it to me.  You claim to know, remember?

Quote:


Well, one things for sure, our shitty education system and infrastructure will only get worse the more federal centralized control they have over it.




You then posted graphs that don't support your statement.  Show me some piece of information that supports your statement please.


--------------------


Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here


Extras: Unfilter Print Post Top
InvisibleballsalsaMDiscord
Universally Loathed and Reviled
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 20,817
Loc: Foreign Lands
Re: Official Hillary vs Trump Debate Thread. [Re: hostileuniverse] * 1
    #23686545 - 09/28/16 12:53 PM (7 years, 3 months ago)

so you don't have any evidence to back up your claims then?


--------------------


Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here


Extras: Unfilter Print Post Top
InvisibleballsalsaMDiscord
Universally Loathed and Reviled
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 20,817
Loc: Foreign Lands
Re: Official Hillary vs Trump Debate Thread. [Re: hostileuniverse]
    #23686575 - 09/28/16 01:01 PM (7 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

hostileuniverse said:
I've posted our ranking in the world, you don't care, I've posted the spending compared, you don't care

Republicans are mean!




don't be such a baby.  your evidence didn't support your argument and i explained why.  Now do the work of reading some shit until you can substantiate your claims, or just admit that you were pulling arguments out of your ass please.


--------------------


Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here


Extras: Unfilter Print Post Top
InvisibleballsalsaMDiscord
Universally Loathed and Reviled
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 20,817
Loc: Foreign Lands
Re: Official Hillary vs Trump Debate Thread. [Re: The Ecstatic]
    #23688532 - 09/28/16 09:30 PM (7 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

The Ecstatic said:
They just squirt it in your colon and it works idk its crazy




i read about this, but my understanding was that they had to get it into the small intestine, so they use and endoscope or whatever to send it through the front door because theres too many turns coming in from the back


--------------------


Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here


Extras: Unfilter Print Post Top
InvisibleballsalsaMDiscord
Universally Loathed and Reviled
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 20,817
Loc: Foreign Lands
Re: Official Hillary vs Trump Debate Thread. [Re: amp244] * 3
    #23695585 - 09/30/16 09:38 PM (7 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

amp244 said:
My point is that America didn’t accumulate such great wealth through taxes or public donations to the common good, it was accumulated as a result of the profit incentive allowing free men to follow their own interests and become rich. The fact that today 64% of homes are owned by their occupants(2) is proof that the prosperity wasn’t only realized by the elite. We built a healthy and prosperous nation under capitalism, without a federal government implementing all types of policies, an income tax, and mandates.




Since people live today under a regime of taxes and have since the early 20th century (in terms of income tax), i'm not sure i understand how pre-1850s economics relate to 21st century home ownership. 

Quote:


My point is that you can never tax into prosperity. A centrally powerful federal government taxing the shit out of people’s produce is not only a threat to freedom, it’s a move toward despotism. You can never GROW an economy and lift up all classes of people through taxation. You can only prop up one by destroying another. Wealth does not cause poverty, wealth cures it. The potential for achieving lasting prosperity in the poor communities through distribution of current production pales in comparison to the only way it has ever been achieved; through increasing production, through the creation of wealth.  Our system, and every aspect of it, should be geared toward incentivizing the creation of wealth, being a watch-dog, and insuring the freedom of every person. A system designed to give people a whole rack of shit for “free” is a system that is destined to fail, because it is a system of plunder that deters investment and production, and thus, deters the creation of wealth. If such weren’t the case, as people like falcon argue, we wouldn’t be sitting here having these debates about jobs leaving, and increasing numbers of poor without work.




what you are describing is the basis of belief in supply side economics (reaganomics, voodoo economics).  Guess what, Americans have been steadily increasing in productivity while wages have stagnated for 40 years.  Maybe a few more tax breaks for the "job creators" will magically work this time...

Quote:


My point is that before we had big government we had economic prosperity. People who say, ‘oh it was only good for the elite! It was so terrible for everyone else!’ should note that the population grew in North America by over 600% in the 1800’s(3). The U.S. on its own saw a far more drastic explosion of population(4). According to the science of economics, the population grows along with the demand for labor in advanced economies with the division of labor. Immigrants were coming in, but the main contributor was an increase in birth rates(4). When people can afford it, they have children; when they can’t, they don’t. Before the institution of the welfare state, poor people raised less children, because they were incapable of financially supporting them. Children were a burden and made the lives of the poor unduly hard. The population grew in relation to production and shared economic prosperity. Child mortality rates were very high among the poor so the population explosion shows economic prosperity on all levels.




yes, there has been prosperity for some segment of the population under vitually any economic system

Quote:


My point is that we are sinking fast with all of our gov’t influence and welfare programs. I could probably quote every single person on this forum as saying that the U.S. is a nation of ignorant citizens. That is another example of how the government tries to force shit and fucks it up. Education is a disaster and it is despite (or because of) government action. The population is growing, but there is no shared economic prosperity. Why is this? Why are people having children if they are living in poverty? Because of the economic calamity that is the ‘welfare state’. I’m not against the institution of welfare, I’m against welfare on such an extreme, ruinous scale. The results are clear, way too many hands and way too little labor. I would like to know if any of the baby boomers who may be on this site remember having a hard time finding a job when they were younger. They were the result of economic prosperity, not economic plunder. The new generation is not so fortunate. They are working against an elite class of intelligentsia that advance propaganda promoting the destruction of the country and the wealth of its citizens. I recently posted a link of a debate between Al Gore and Ross Perot on NAFTA in 1993(5). NAFTA turned out to be a horrible deal and virtually everything Al Gore was saying turned out to be a downright lie designed to sell a terrible deal to the American public for the benefit of the elite. The politicians (on both sides) lie and lie and lie, and people continue to believe their testimony. The policies of this country are a blatant power-grab on the working class. Putting faith in the stock of such a belief isn’t a paranoid exploit. It’s consistent with human history.




yeah, nafta sucked a dick, and with more and more automation in the works, human labor is losing value quick.  What will unfettered capitalism do to stop or slow this process?
 

Quote:


My point is that Capitalism is a self-organizing, naturally occurring circumstance. It is hardly an –ism, such as socialism or communism, which describe political and economic ideologies that must be implemented and forced. Capitalism arises out of the natural course of human conduct. It is what happens when you leave people free to engage in whatever kind of economic transactions they agree to. It must be checked by gov’t, but gov’t should not undertake that which it need not.




who decides what is needed?

Quote:

The gov’t is the watchdog, to ensure everyone plays by the rules. After that, the economic outcomes that arise serve as the impetuses behind future investments.




who should decide what the rules are? how should the rules be enforced?

Quote:

People in America were afforded the right to keep what they earned through their produce. They had the right to pass this wealth on to their kin, and the government used to protect their property rights. People worked because it made their lives better. These were the truly prosperous times. The history of United States of America serves as my proof that capitalism works. The welfare state of the United States serves as proof that an elite, ruling class will always strive to obtain absolute influence over the people through economic and political means.




I couldn't agree more with the underlined.  The economic elite do propagate class warfare through trickle-down nonsense to maintain influence.

Quote:

(1) http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/uhic/ReferenceDetailsPage/ReferenceDetailsWindow?zid=7e952f4fd224c2d83c3130d4b800d0a8&action=2&catId=&documentId=GALE%7CBT2350040328&userGroupName=oldt1017&jsid=711bfef797b5766ac55cbb700f060a09

(2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home-ownership_in_the_United_States

(3) http://www.thuto.org/ubh/ub/h202/wpop1.htm

(4) http://www.nber.org/papers/h0056

(5) www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XEziSYRqhU




--------------------


Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here


Extras: Unfilter Print Post Top
InvisibleballsalsaMDiscord
Universally Loathed and Reviled
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 20,817
Loc: Foreign Lands
Re: Official Hillary vs Trump Debate Thread. [Re: amp244] * 3
    #23698439 - 10/01/16 09:17 PM (7 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

amp244 said:
Quote:

ballsalsa said:
Since people live today under a regime of taxes and have since the early 20th century (in terms of income tax), i'm not sure i understand how pre-1850s economics relate to 21st century home ownership.



It shows that despite all this control the elite exercise and have apparently been exercising the entire time (according to others) private property still exists to the degree that creates a U.S. where 64% of houses are owned by their occupants. 64% of the population aren't considered "elites" are they? How do you all propose that this wealth entered the working class if everything is so terribly inequitable? It didn't come from taxes. It came from economic freedom and the profit incentive.




Maybe it has something to do with the G.I. bill, Fannie Mae, the National Housing Act of 1934, or any number of efforts by the federal government to make housing more affordable.

Quote:

Quote:


what you are describing is the basis of belief in supply side economics (reaganomics, voodoo economics).  Guess what, Americans have been steadily increasing in productivity while wages have stagnated for 40 years.  Maybe a few more tax breaks for the "job creators" will magically work this time...




amp244 said:
I absolutely advocate supply side economics. Anyone with a cursory interest in economics will note that I am obviously of the Austrian school of thought. But its important to note that nothing will work if the govt doesn't do its job as watch-dog. Don't blame supply side economics when the gov't is sold to the highest bidder and anti-trust laws are ignored. Don't blame the Austrian school when the SEC and other regulators are a JOKE. Its not capitalisms fault. Its not freedoms fault.
If your car doesn't have any axels on it, with all the other parts in perfect working order, you can start the motor and put it in gear, but it still wont go anywhere. The car will not work. It would be foolish to then conclude that the motor needs to be replaced because the car isn't moving, but that's exactly how people think in regards to capitalism. Society is the car, capitalism is the motor. Things aren't functioning properly so the conclusion is that capitalism does not work and needs to be replaced. They don't realize that big gov't has a boot on the wheels.




I'll address some of this in a minute. for now, lets just remember the part i underlined here.

Quote:

Quote:


yes, there has been prosperity for some segment of the population under virtually any economic system



amp244 said:
That's the point. The economy must be run for everybody, not just one segment. Trying to help one by hurting another brings everyone down in the long run. You make the rules equitable for everyone. You either strive for equality of treatment, or equality of income, you can't have both. The only way I can see that is "fair" to everyone is to treat everyone the same. There will be winners and there will be losers; the reason you see so many losers is because of a defunct government, not because of supply-side economics. We have neither equality of treatment, nor equality of income.




that is a good answer.  Rather than type a long rebuttal, i'll post this video if Barry Schwartz discussing more or less the same topic.  I share this video all the time, so ignore it if you've already watched, but it's worth the 20 min if you never heard what he has to say before.


Quote:

Quote:


yeah, nafta sucked a dick, and with more and more automation in the works, human labor is losing value quick.  What will unfettered capitalism do to stop or slow this process?



amp244 said:
Anyone advocating unfettered capitalism, bereft of government is a fool. That is not my contention. Terrible trade deals like NAFTA are another reason why people are under the illusion that capitalism is inherently bad for the "little guy". There is more to an automobile than just the engine. The engine needs an ECU, it needs a regulator. Capitalism is supposed to be "fettered".

As far as the 'evil' automation, capitalism will do nothing to stop it, and that's the beauty of capitalism. The economic landscape is constantly changing, just look at history. Capitalism allocates the resources and flow of human labor away from where they are no longer needed and into the nascent industries that have sprung up replacing them. Who knows what industries will be spawned in the coming years? Do you think anyone knew what an IT job was 60 years ago? Tech companies have spawned an entirely new generation of industries as well. 3D printing companies, Digital forensics companies (Hillary knows about them), software engineers, computer resource management systems for virtually every business imaginable. These jobs didn't exist UNTIL automation and technological advancements made the mass production of computers possible. The argument that technology will replace human labor has been run down 1000 times, only to later resurface and rear its unsubstantiated head. It will probably never die, and doubtlessly never be proven.



 
1) NAFTA happened in an era of "Big Government" regulations.  The "ECU" was there.
2)I didn't say that automation is "evil", i said that it is driving down the value of human labor.  Do i think we should be using candles for the sake of keeping the candlemakers in business? no, of course not.  Nevertheless, it is an inevitable problem.  There just aren't enough IT jobs for everyone.  Even if you could create higher skilled jobs to replace all of the grocery store jobs and factory jobs etc., Not everyone can master the necessary skills, yet everyone needs a job to survive in this country. As advances in the fields of robotic, computers, and biotechnology proceed, human labor will devalue at a faster pace.  its only a matter of time.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:


My point is that Capitalism is a self-organizing, naturally occurring circumstance. It is hardly an –ism, such as socialism or communism, which describe political and economic ideologies that must be implemented and forced. Capitalism arises out of the natural course of human conduct. It is what happens when you leave people free to engage in whatever kind of economic transactions they agree to. It must be checked by gov’t, but gov’t should not undertake that which it need not.




who decides what is needed?



amp244 said:
Nobody. Again, that's the beauty of capitalism. That's why its hardly an -ism. That's why I wrote the top portion of the very quote above. If the gov't didn't make it illegal for others to deliver the letter mail it would be undertaken by private organizations. Without Obamacare, Insurance companies would still provide services. Those unable to afford insurance would still be taken care of and the taxpayer would still foot the bill. The market can do better naturally and spontaneously, what these almighty legislators purport to be able to do arbitrarily. The government should be there to provide only what the free market will not provide on its own because there is no one person or group of people willing to bear the costs themselves on behalf of society. Governments should build roads, prisons, psych wards, parks, armies etc.




So many things...
Ok, first, the U.S. postal service does an amazing job and ships letters and packages at a much more affordable price than any private shipping company.
Second, forcing the uninsured into the E.R. costs much more than just giving them primary care, for several reasons.
Third,remember way back at the top of this post when i said to remember the part i underlined? This is why.  You can't argue on the one hand that you need the government to regulate the economy at large, and then say on the other hand that the government should only provide "what the free market will not...".  You just got done saying that the government should regulate the market!  That's not laissez-faire at all.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

amp244 said:
The gov’t is the watchdog, to ensure everyone plays by the rules. After that, the economic outcomes that arise serve as the impetuses behind future investments.




Who should decide what the rules are? how should the rules be enforced?


amp244 said:
A governing body should decide the rules, whether through democratic processes or those of a republic. The rules should be enforced as they have always been enforced, through law; the threat of force.




Here we go again.
1) Which is it?  Government interferes with the market or not?
2)Again, you want governing bodies to decide the rules, but you also want it to decide to have less rules (in order to encourage a free market) and here's the kicker, you want this through the acts of democratic process or those of a republic (essentially the "free market" of the political realm).  Where did you think we got the laws that we have now?

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

The welfare state of the United States serves as proof that an elite, ruling class will always strive to obtain absolute influence over the people through economic and political means.




I couldn't agree more with the underlined.  The economic elite do propagate class warfare through trickle-down nonsense to maintain influence.



amp244 said:
Name one establishment talking head that pushes supply-side, capital investment based theory. One guy from the Austrian school that goes onto all of the major news networks and gets talking time. All of the Austrian guys like Ron Paul are deliberately censored and not given a voice.




Ah, yes, good old Ron "let'em die" Paul. (to be fair, it was his supporters in the audience that were cheering and yelling, not him)  I won't post the debate vid; i'm sure you got the reference.

Quote:

amp244 said:
All of these elites are Keynesians. They don't like capitalism because capitalism does more than just produce wealth. The most important aspect of capitalism, and why it is even an -ism in the first place, is because it is based on the individuals right to life, liberty, and property. Capitalism is based on freedom. It empowers EVERYBODY. Mass democide has never occurred in a capitalist country because economic freedom in and of itself serves as a check on tyranny. Germany, The Soviet Union, Mao's China, Congo, etc. They were all autocratic societies with centrally planned economies. The proof is in the history books.




Capitalism may empower everybody...on day one.  After that it begins the process of gradually disadvantaging most people.  It is a multi generational process of course .  Every day, people are born. some are born into wealth, others, not as much, to varying degrees.  Being born into money increases the odds of dying with money and therefore conferring this advantage to offspring.  As wealth becomes more concentrated through this natural process, the process itself speeds up. (the more money you have, the easier it is to make more money yadda yadda yadda)  Aside from speeding up, this hereditary money advantage causes increased class stratification, and decreased class mobility.  Maybe this could be mitigated by a 100% estate tax across all income levels.  That sounds like something governing body could do through democratic processes as a "fetter' on capitalism. (to be clear, i don't advocate a 100% estate tax)

Thats all for now.  Much of this has been covered ad nauseum in other threads, I can dig up sources etc. later when you ask for them, but i'm tired now.  It took forever just to format this post, i can see why you don't like line by line rebuttals for extended discussion.


--------------------


Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here


Extras: Unfilter Print Post Top
InvisibleballsalsaMDiscord
Universally Loathed and Reviled
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 20,817
Loc: Foreign Lands
Re: Official Hillary vs Trump Debate Thread. [Re: amp244] * 2
    #23698687 - 10/01/16 11:10 PM (7 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

amp244 said:
None of you seem to understand that capitalism, when nobody is abusing the system, makes the small man powerful.




NOTE:this quote has been edited down to the relevant portion


Wrong.  Everybody understands that.  What you don't seem to get is that we don't live in a world of theory where you can just assume that nobody will game the system.  Here in reality-land, there are dickheads on every street corner, and they will gladly scam the fuck out of anyone for an extra nickel if they think they can get away with it.  The kind of capitalism that you are imagining, "capitalism, when nobody is abusing the system", doesn't and won't exist.


--------------------


Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here


Extras: Unfilter Print Post Top
InvisibleballsalsaMDiscord
Universally Loathed and Reviled
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 20,817
Loc: Foreign Lands
Re: Official Hillary vs Trump Debate Thread. [Re: amp244] * 3
    #23698692 - 10/01/16 11:16 PM (7 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

amp244 said:
Capitalism wasn't matured enough for all the rich businessmen, corporations, and industries that were in business in 1780 to be able to take advantage of all the citizens, right? It has nothing to do with the fact that our presidents and representatives actually gave a fuck about the public and the economic health of the country back then? Its all because capitalism was just so young, and it needed time to rear its ugly head.





Holy shit!  i didn't see this until i re-read it!  Now, not that i buy the premise of the benevolent founding fathers etc., but let's go with that since you proposed it.
Think about your own argument here...Beginning of America = politicians who care about the public.  Modern America = politicians who care about special interests.
now here's the twist: All it took was time for Capitalism to work its magic! :lolsy:


--------------------


Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here


Extras: Unfilter Print Post Top
InvisibleballsalsaMDiscord
Universally Loathed and Reviled
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 20,817
Loc: Foreign Lands
Re: Official Hillary vs Trump Debate Thread. [Re: amp244]
    #23698824 - 10/02/16 12:02 AM (7 years, 3 months ago)

probably helps that we built in a system by which to amend the constitution.  less point in radical changes in political systems when you can gradually change them through democratic processes, don't you agree?  What does the soundness of the United States Constitution have to do with the price of tea in China?


--------------------


Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here


Extras: Unfilter Print Post Top
InvisibleballsalsaMDiscord
Universally Loathed and Reviled
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 20,817
Loc: Foreign Lands
Re: Official Hillary vs Trump Debate Thread. [Re: amp244]
    #23698850 - 10/02/16 12:14 AM (7 years, 3 months ago)



--------------------


Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here


Extras: Unfilter Print Post Top
InvisibleballsalsaMDiscord
Universally Loathed and Reviled
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 20,817
Loc: Foreign Lands
Re: Official Hillary vs Trump Debate Thread. [Re: amp244]
    #23698892 - 10/02/16 12:36 AM (7 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

amp244 said:
Quote:

ballsalsa said:
http://bfy.tw/7zF7



Damn, how'd you do that. That was cool. And I never heard that saying before. You learn something new everyday.
And I don't think I passed any judgement on the "soundness of the constitution" so I don't know what your getting at.

I like capitalism. I like the constitution. And I like life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I love this country. That's not an argument or a suggestion, its a statement of my current state of emotion.




lmgtfy.com

You were talking about how great the U.S. is and about how long its lasted so far without major change in the system of government, in specific you mentioned having the same constitution etc.  You seemed to think that this has something to do with the efficacy of capitalism when it could just as easily be a product of a sound constitution regardless. in other words, the things might be essentially as unrelated as they are to the price of tea in china, see?


--------------------


Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here


Extras: Unfilter Print Post Top
InvisibleballsalsaMDiscord
Universally Loathed and Reviled
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 20,817
Loc: Foreign Lands
Re: Official Hillary vs Trump Debate Thread. [Re: amp244] * 3
    #23699789 - 10/02/16 10:37 AM (7 years, 3 months ago)

yes yes, there were many qualifiers in your statement.  Here, let me try.

I am the most financially successful person in the history of the world with my name, date of birth, height, weight, and social security number.

pretty impressive huh?


--------------------


Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here


Extras: Unfilter Print Post Top
InvisibleballsalsaMDiscord
Universally Loathed and Reviled
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 20,817
Loc: Foreign Lands
Re: Official Hillary vs Trump Debate Thread. [Re: amp244]
    #23699966 - 10/02/16 11:45 AM (7 years, 3 months ago)

you may, if you wish. Hyperbole not withstanding, your reaction assures me that you got the point.

Yes, The U.S. has lasted the longest, as long as you don't count any of the many nations that lasted longer.  whoop-di-do!

btw, your 240 years number is off by about 12.  The U.S. constitution wasn't ratified until 1788.  In fact, it was a radical re-structuring of the previous American system of governance under the Articles of Confederation.  So there.

Edit: the new government under the U.S. Constitution didn't take effect until 1789 despite being ratified in 1788


--------------------


Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here


Edited by ballsalsa (10/02/16 01:34 PM)


Extras: Unfilter Print Post Top
InvisibleballsalsaMDiscord
Universally Loathed and Reviled
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 20,817
Loc: Foreign Lands
Re: Official Hillary vs Trump Debate Thread. [Re: ballsalsa] * 2
    #23700087 - 10/02/16 12:36 PM (7 years, 3 months ago)

i'm stalking the "who's online" function right now like :standingby:


--------------------


Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here


Extras: Unfilter Print Post Top
InvisibleballsalsaMDiscord
Universally Loathed and Reviled
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 20,817
Loc: Foreign Lands
Re: Official Hillary vs Trump Debate Thread. [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03] * 1
    #23720427 - 10/08/16 07:15 PM (7 years, 3 months ago)

he's "pro-growth", and he wants to super-charge our energy levels to over 9000 or some shit like that. Haven't you heard?


--------------------


Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here


Extras: Unfilter Print Post Top
InvisibleballsalsaMDiscord
Universally Loathed and Reviled
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 20,817
Loc: Foreign Lands
Re: Official Hillary vs Trump Debate Thread. [Re: Great Scott]
    #23764044 - 10/23/16 11:37 AM (7 years, 3 months ago)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Wells_County,_Texas#1948_U.S._Senate_election
Quote:

Jim Wells County is known as the home of "Box 13", the infamous ballot box which gave Lyndon Baines Johnson an 86-vote edge over popular former governor Coke Stevenson in the Democratic primary election. It was later demonstrated that these 200 votes were "stuffed" into the ballot box after the polls had closed.[9] Johnson went on to win the election.






--------------------


Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here


Extras: Unfilter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Thread for tha liberals. oggleman 1,017 13 11/04/04 06:48 PM
by Worf
* TRUMP 2024
( 1 2 3 4 ... 1201 1202 )
XUL 284,992 24,030 01/27/24 06:43 PM
by Bigbadwooof
* Was Bush Wired During the Debate? EchoVortex 1,088 14 10/08/04 05:46 PM
by Gijith
* US debates bid to kill Hussein and avoid trial Edame 633 1 08/01/03 02:02 PM
by wingnutx
* HILLARY'S CHUTZPAH luvdemshrooms 409 0 11/02/03 05:27 PM
by luvdemshrooms
* Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
Phred 5,006 98 10/04/04 08:15 PM
by Divided_Sky
* CBS: Saddam challenges Bush to debate
( 1 2 all )
Angry Mycologist 2,995 38 02/25/03 12:45 PM
by MushyMay
* Hitler V Saddam
( 1 2 all )
germin8tionn8ion 4,258 28 07/03/04 09:20 AM
by Ed1

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
22,427 topic views. 2 members, 4 guests and 6 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.029 seconds spending 0.005 seconds on 16 queries.