Jesus, man, how far up your own ass CAN you be?

You're getting my whole point wrong. Not socialism, but social democracy, not eliminated, but reduced.

I don't see the government as a solid entity that gets everything in its hands that that's the only way to make it right; I see it as arbiter to capitalist system which does produce goods but is inherently unjust, and the government upholds the law, and gives a level playing field for everybody, which has to be paid by taxes. In that view most of the western democracies fit this category, I already mentioned Great Britain (use any metric of comparison from the time of industrial revolution and now), but it seems like every Western democracy after WW2 would fit the description.

But if you're trying to make me say that socialism eliminated inequality -- good luck fighting strawman.

Thanks for quoting back most of my post to me, I love seeing my words cited. But I have to tell you, since I'm the one who wrote it, I sort of already knew what it said.

That's quite a bit narcissistic. Good for you.

Did you have a point in any of that, or were you just so excited that somebody said something Rachel Maddow would disagree with, you had to repeat it?

If you haven't understood what my point was, then I'm sorry, and what of anything I said has to do with Rachel Maddow?

I'm well aware that socialism, when combined with proper amounts of fairy dust, kitten whiskers, double rainbows, and the earnest wishes of 6 year olds, will eliminate "social inequalities". I'm also well aware that it doesn't do that in practice, because all socialism does is concentrate wealth in the hands of the central government, which special interests then wrestle with each other to control - often with bloody results.

Why do you have to do it again, these are truly random ramblings, it looks like there's a burned out circuit responsible for the knowledge of civics and rational thinking, you're trying to use it but it's just isn't there. You're not even trying to make counter arguments but instead you end up running in circles mindlessly repeating -- "socialism -- bad, socialism -- fairytales, socialism -- bloodbath".
Dude, I just hope that one day you'd realize that you're wrong.

Dear God, you just went out of your way to prove his point. You should really go back and find definitions of socialism and social democracy and look them up.

You're using this tortured, wrapped logic to somehow argue against your own rights. Are you implying that the gold standard of national economy is 19th century Britain? And, what with the talking points?

- your preferred liberal (socialist) agenda
- who doesn't love free shit? You know what they don't love? Paying for it, as they eventually will.
- of very good reasons to not support socialism in practice - most notably that it's not financially sustainable as an economic solution
- pay for entitlements given to others
- Can you think of a worse way to encourage creativity and industry
- this country has been governed as a socialist state for many years now
- they're both beholden to their corporate & wealthy masters who are giving them their marching orders
- Socialism - in practice - is just another way for a wealthy and privileged few to amass more power and wealth
- rich few who enjoy privilege far beyond what the serfs tilling the land are entitled to

Also, I got to give you extra points for using an extreme case of social inequality, a signature feature of a capitalist system, to be blamed on a socialist ideology, the whole point of which, is to fight such inequality. Also, I'd like to point out this sentence --

"Great, you're very skilled with programming. Now you need to go work an extra 20 hours this week to pay for your neighbor's food, since he's kind of dumb?"

First of all, I really hope that it makes any sense for you, and second, I hope you enjoy 40 hour week and 1.5x overtime that the evil subversive socialists brought to you.

Dude, you should really stop watching that Glenn Beck show and step away from the TV set.

There's lies, damned lies, and statistics.

In this pool the question is somewhat unclear.

The question could go either: Did Bush have the intelligence warning that there is going to be an imminent attack on US but didn't do anything about it? (my answer is Yes, just google 'Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US') OR Did US government orchestrated the destruction of WTC? (Then my answer is a definite no.)

Anyway I don't think that the belief that US government might be behind 9/11, given that how the administration lied about the invasion of Iraq, is as misguided as anything that contains words 'Obama', 'secret', 'terrorist' and 'muslim' in the same sentence.

Actually, it's even easier, add cobalt to several nukes on site, blow them up on site and let winds and currents take care of the rest. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobalt_bomb

Actually I do mind, as you completely missed my point. I just was poking fun at the parent by using exactly the same broad generalizing statements as the parent only flipping ideological side of the argument.

About crimes committed with legally purchased guns out of the state -- I heard about a study being sited on some news program, I don't think can find it right now.

And yet conservatives plug their ears and scream "I CANT HEAR YOU" when you present the solid and provenfact that gun laws STOP gun violence as criminals, unsuprisingly, have to jump through extra hoops to get a weapon and could be arrested for mere posession of a firearm. Most of the crimes in states that enforce gun laws are comitted with firearms legally purchased in the states with more relaxed gun laws.

The absense of gun laws simply arms the criminals. That is it. There is no other use.

I wonder if he can repair my constituency' side wall?

--Simon

First of all I'm going to take a precautionary WOOSH over my own head about not getting the joke.

I don't think being a manager would entitle him to knowing details about operating an oil rig, hell even a few BP execs don't know that.

What if Bush would be the usual self and fucks up everything? With all the connections he's got in the oil industry and fucking Dick fucking Cheney, wouldn't he just be more gullible to BP's promises -- let the free market decide or such bullshit and let all the things be settled in court on individual basis or via class action. Would the government pressure BP to set up 20 bn escrow fund?

There's also additional irony in your statement, as republicans are always(say, since as far back as Reagan) have been perceived as being good on security and now you suggesting that a republican politician should probably handle a crisis that doesn't involve blowing shit up and/or killing people.

You ruined the joke, it goes like this: Almost Winter, Winter, Still Winter and Road Works.

Anyhoo, it +34 and smog alert in Toronto.

But it's not a van.

OMG 8 cylinders with body on frame that thing might as well have a beefy alternator as it needs some excuse for burning so much fuel.

It doesn't, I was wrong and then couldn't reply to my own post.

Though now it's evident that George Michael and Prince reside in the same part of my brain.

Always remember that this guy is responsible for this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3354flS1KJs