I want to be 14 again and ruin my life differently. I have new ideas.
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
We're brave!
Quote from: New Labour on January 05, 2009, 05:11:14 PMQuote from: Lord Phlexor on January 05, 2009, 09:01:25 AMQuote from: TheoK on January 05, 2009, 01:53:33 AMQuote from: Lord Phlexor on January 04, 2009, 06:28:32 PMI do not understand why you feel you need odeon to express his opinion, if he has any, on the solution to bullying in schools. Do you require it in order to believe his assertion that you idea is broken? I mean I doubt that would be anywhere near enough for you to sway you beliefs. So all that I am left with is that you wish to publicly ridicule his ideas. I fail to see how that us useful and I also believe that odeon isn't that stupid to play into your juvenile game here.Please feel free to point out how I'm wrong, I don't want to be left out here odeon is ridiculing other people in this topic as well as others, but he doesn't come up with a solution of his own. You don't have to give a solution of your own just for critizing others, but it makes you lee trustworthy.So it's just a dumb rule you have made up to bully someone (which doesn't seem to be working) into giving forth their opinion in order for you to pick it apart because you are insecure in exposing the failings of your own idea?Sounds like NT bullshit trickery to me.If anyone one here could be construed to be bullying, it would be Odeon with his Ad Hom nonsense. I'll have to remember that one, point out obvious flaws is now considered bullying.Aren't you two supposed to be tough or something? I mean at least you talk that way ( ).
Quote from: Lord Phlexor on January 05, 2009, 09:01:25 AMQuote from: TheoK on January 05, 2009, 01:53:33 AMQuote from: Lord Phlexor on January 04, 2009, 06:28:32 PMI do not understand why you feel you need odeon to express his opinion, if he has any, on the solution to bullying in schools. Do you require it in order to believe his assertion that you idea is broken? I mean I doubt that would be anywhere near enough for you to sway you beliefs. So all that I am left with is that you wish to publicly ridicule his ideas. I fail to see how that us useful and I also believe that odeon isn't that stupid to play into your juvenile game here.Please feel free to point out how I'm wrong, I don't want to be left out here odeon is ridiculing other people in this topic as well as others, but he doesn't come up with a solution of his own. You don't have to give a solution of your own just for critizing others, but it makes you lee trustworthy.So it's just a dumb rule you have made up to bully someone (which doesn't seem to be working) into giving forth their opinion in order for you to pick it apart because you are insecure in exposing the failings of your own idea?Sounds like NT bullshit trickery to me.If anyone one here could be construed to be bullying, it would be Odeon with his Ad Hom nonsense.
Quote from: TheoK on January 05, 2009, 01:53:33 AMQuote from: Lord Phlexor on January 04, 2009, 06:28:32 PMI do not understand why you feel you need odeon to express his opinion, if he has any, on the solution to bullying in schools. Do you require it in order to believe his assertion that you idea is broken? I mean I doubt that would be anywhere near enough for you to sway you beliefs. So all that I am left with is that you wish to publicly ridicule his ideas. I fail to see how that us useful and I also believe that odeon isn't that stupid to play into your juvenile game here.Please feel free to point out how I'm wrong, I don't want to be left out here odeon is ridiculing other people in this topic as well as others, but he doesn't come up with a solution of his own. You don't have to give a solution of your own just for critizing others, but it makes you lee trustworthy.So it's just a dumb rule you have made up to bully someone (which doesn't seem to be working) into giving forth their opinion in order for you to pick it apart because you are insecure in exposing the failings of your own idea?Sounds like NT bullshit trickery to me.
Quote from: Lord Phlexor on January 04, 2009, 06:28:32 PMI do not understand why you feel you need odeon to express his opinion, if he has any, on the solution to bullying in schools. Do you require it in order to believe his assertion that you idea is broken? I mean I doubt that would be anywhere near enough for you to sway you beliefs. So all that I am left with is that you wish to publicly ridicule his ideas. I fail to see how that us useful and I also believe that odeon isn't that stupid to play into your juvenile game here.Please feel free to point out how I'm wrong, I don't want to be left out here odeon is ridiculing other people in this topic as well as others, but he doesn't come up with a solution of his own. You don't have to give a solution of your own just for critizing others, but it makes you lee trustworthy.
I do not understand why you feel you need odeon to express his opinion, if he has any, on the solution to bullying in schools. Do you require it in order to believe his assertion that you idea is broken? I mean I doubt that would be anywhere near enough for you to sway you beliefs. So all that I am left with is that you wish to publicly ridicule his ideas. I fail to see how that us useful and I also believe that odeon isn't that stupid to play into your juvenile game here.Please feel free to point out how I'm wrong, I don't want to be left out here
Quote from: odeon on January 05, 2009, 04:59:12 PMNone of those methods works. There was never equality under social democrat rule. That's why the socialist states fail, one after another--the ideology does not work. And anarchy--please; show me a working example of anarchy, anywhere.There is no working example of anarchy because no one has tried it on anything larger than a communal scale. Doesn't mean it won't work. My thought is that we're evolving into an anarchist society, but the masses aren't quite ready to give up this idea that government can fix everything. Based on recent polls regarding Bush and the bailout, however, I'd say they're leaning more towards libertarianism--or "anarchy light," if you prefer. What pisses me off is that, even with mass disapproval, Congress and Obama will probably go ahead with the Big Three bailout as well as creating hundreds of thousands of gov't jobs by upping the tax rate. This in a time of economic crisis. Ask any decent economist and s/he'll tell you that FDR's New Deal didn't curtail the economic depression; it *extended* it by creating jobs at the expense of taxpayers and business people, curtailing their abilities to make purchases, hire more workers and innovate. It's possible we could have had stereo records and TV five years earlier than we did if not for the New Deal. If not for War Two, the Depression might have lasted even longer. (At least FDR had the sense to end Prohibition and resume taxing alcohol consumption.) And now Obama's New New Deal threatens to sabotage economic turnaround before it can get properly started. Townsend was right: Meet the new boss--same as the old boss.
None of those methods works. There was never equality under social democrat rule. That's why the socialist states fail, one after another--the ideology does not work. And anarchy--please; show me a working example of anarchy, anywhere.
Lit agrees because Hadron is BRAVE and visionary.
Quote from: punkdrew on January 05, 2009, 08:55:12 PMQuote from: odeon on January 05, 2009, 04:59:12 PMNone of those methods works. There was never equality under social democrat rule. That's why the socialist states fail, one after another--the ideology does not work. And anarchy--please; show me a working example of anarchy, anywhere.There is no working example of anarchy because no one has tried it on anything larger than a communal scale. Doesn't mean it won't work. My thought is that we're evolving into an anarchist society, but the masses aren't quite ready to give up this idea that government can fix everything. Based on recent polls regarding Bush and the bailout, however, I'd say they're leaning more towards libertarianism--or "anarchy light," if you prefer. What pisses me off is that, even with mass disapproval, Congress and Obama will probably go ahead with the Big Three bailout as well as creating hundreds of thousands of gov't jobs by upping the tax rate. This in a time of economic crisis. Ask any decent economist and s/he'll tell you that FDR's New Deal didn't curtail the economic depression; it *extended* it by creating jobs at the expense of taxpayers and business people, curtailing their abilities to make purchases, hire more workers and innovate. It's possible we could have had stereo records and TV five years earlier than we did if not for the New Deal. If not for War Two, the Depression might have lasted even longer. (At least FDR had the sense to end Prohibition and resume taxing alcohol consumption.) And now Obama's New New Deal threatens to sabotage economic turnaround before it can get properly started. Townsend was right: Meet the new boss--same as the old boss.Personally I doubt we'll ever move to an anarchist society. The reason why there isn't a larger-scale anarchism anywhere is because I simply think it would be asking too much from people. Remember, the lack of a working government does not equal anarchism, as Hadron seems to think.
Quote from: odeon on January 07, 2009, 02:55:10 PMQuote from: punkdrew on January 05, 2009, 08:55:12 PMQuote from: odeon on January 05, 2009, 04:59:12 PMNone of those methods works. There was never equality under social democrat rule. That's why the socialist states fail, one after another--the ideology does not work. And anarchy--please; show me a working example of anarchy, anywhere.There is no working example of anarchy because no one has tried it on anything larger than a communal scale. Doesn't mean it won't work. My thought is that we're evolving into an anarchist society, but the masses aren't quite ready to give up this idea that government can fix everything. Based on recent polls regarding Bush and the bailout, however, I'd say they're leaning more towards libertarianism--or "anarchy light," if you prefer. What pisses me off is that, even with mass disapproval, Congress and Obama will probably go ahead with the Big Three bailout as well as creating hundreds of thousands of gov't jobs by upping the tax rate. This in a time of economic crisis. Ask any decent economist and s/he'll tell you that FDR's New Deal didn't curtail the economic depression; it *extended* it by creating jobs at the expense of taxpayers and business people, curtailing their abilities to make purchases, hire more workers and innovate. It's possible we could have had stereo records and TV five years earlier than we did if not for the New Deal. If not for War Two, the Depression might have lasted even longer. (At least FDR had the sense to end Prohibition and resume taxing alcohol consumption.) And now Obama's New New Deal threatens to sabotage economic turnaround before it can get properly started. Townsend was right: Meet the new boss--same as the old boss.Personally I doubt we'll ever move to an anarchist society. The reason why there isn't a larger-scale anarchism anywhere is because I simply think it would be asking too much from people. Remember, the lack of a working government does not equal anarchism, as Hadron seems to think.Merry Christmas (albeit a tad early...)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy_in_Somalia
this is strongly disputed by anti-capitalist anarchists who contend it is not anarchy, but merely chaos[6] resulting from unequal distribution of power and meddling by neighbors and developed nations like the United States.