But it is a coup. The end goal is clearly for the military to depose Maduro and elevate this guy noone had heard of 48 hours ago.
We have no business meddling like that. Her statement is good and correct.
So you are on record as supporting a communist dictator rigging elections and using violence to suppress legitimate elections?
Ah yes, saying we have no business interventing there means I also support the dictatorship.
“We shouldn’t invade Iraq it will be a disaster”
“So you’re on record as supporting Saddam and his violent repression of his people? Traitor!!!”
Who said anything about invasion? Oh right, your conflating to make it a binary choice. I'm on record as saying we should condemn dictators using mass murder to stay in power. It's a wild fucking stance to take, I know.
Ok fine, condemn them. That’s it. I don’t have a problem with saying Maduro is bad.
But don’t intervene and recognize a different government. Not our business.
So do you think we shouldn't recognize Taiwan?
The nationalist government actually controls the island, unlike this guy in Venezuela. Bad example.
Ah, so you're saying we should recognize whatever government has militarily occupied a territory?
The old Soviet System didn't recognize the rule of law and corruption was rampant. The new Russia is exactly the same. The fact that they weren't able to maintain programs that existed under the old Communist system after the collapse was just the inevitable result of a failed Communist state.
Russia needed a capitalistic system but to make that happen you have to have property rights and the rule of law. They don't have that precisely because of the Soviet system they lived under not because anything Clinton did or didn't do.
Russia needed a capitalist system but they had no infrastructure to do so but we needed to do it anyway, because. Brilliant.
But it is a coup. The end goal is clearly for the military to depose Maduro and elevate this guy noone had heard of 48 hours ago.
We have no business meddling like that. Her statement is good and correct.
So you are on record as supporting a communist dictator rigging elections and using violence to suppress legitimate elections?
Ah yes, saying we have no business interventing there means I also support the dictatorship.
“We shouldn’t invade Iraq it will be a disaster”
“So you’re on record as supporting Saddam and his violent repression of his people? Traitor!!!”
Who said anything about invasion? Oh right, your conflating to make it a binary choice. I'm on record as saying we should condemn dictators using mass murder to stay in power. It's a wild fucking stance to take, I know.
Ok fine, condemn them. That’s it. I don’t have a problem with saying Maduro is bad.
But don’t intervene and recognize a different government. Not our business.
So do you think we shouldn't recognize Taiwan?
The nationalist government actually controls the island, unlike this guy in Venezuela. Bad example.
Ah, so you're saying we should recognize whatever government has militarily occupied a territory?
It’s probably better to deal with reality than pretend this other guy is President because he said so
The old Soviet System didn't recognize the rule of law and corruption was rampant. The new Russia is exactly the same. The fact that they weren't able to maintain programs that existed under the old Communist system after the collapse was just the inevitable result of a failed Communist state.
Russia needed a capitalistic system but to make that happen you have to have property rights and the rule of law. They don't have that precisely because of the Soviet system they lived under not because anything Clinton did or didn't do.
Russia needed a capitalist system but they had no infrastructure to do so but we needed to do it anyway, because. Brilliant.
Infrastructure? You think respect for the rule of laws comes from having roads and building? What are you talking about? Corruption was endemic in the old Soviet system. The Soviets went away, the rot and dysfunction corruption and the lack respect for the rule of law is what remained.
The old Soviet System didn't recognize the rule of law and corruption was rampant. The new Russia is exactly the same. The fact that they weren't able to maintain programs that existed under the old Communist system after the collapse was just the inevitable result of a failed Communist state.
Russia needed a capitalistic system but to make that happen you have to have property rights and the rule of law. They don't have that precisely because of the Soviet system they lived under not because anything Clinton did or didn't do.
Russia needed a capitalist system but they had no infrastructure to do so but we needed to do it anyway, because. Brilliant.
Infrastructure? You think respect for the rule of laws comes from having roads and building? What are you talking about? Corruption was endemic in the old Soviet system. The Soviets went away, the rot and dysfunction corruption and the lack respect for the rule of law is what remained.
Fuck all you’re too stupid to understand the difference between the economic infrastructure capitalism requires (property rights, private credit networks, etc.) and infrastructure of roads and bridges. Just give up man.
But it is a coup. The end goal is clearly for the military to depose Maduro and elevate this guy noone had heard of 48 hours ago.
We have no business meddling like that. Her statement is good and correct.
So you are on record as supporting a communist dictator rigging elections and using violence to suppress legitimate elections?
Ah yes, saying we have no business interventing there means I also support the dictatorship.
“We shouldn’t invade Iraq it will be a disaster”
“So you’re on record as supporting Saddam and his violent repression of his people? Traitor!!!”
Who said anything about invasion? Oh right, your conflating to make it a binary choice. I'm on record as saying we should condemn dictators using mass murder to stay in power. It's a wild fucking stance to take, I know.
Ok fine, condemn them. That’s it. I don’t have a problem with saying Maduro is bad.
But don’t intervene and recognize a different government. Not our business.
So do you think we shouldn't recognize Taiwan?
The nationalist government actually controls the island, unlike this guy in Venezuela. Bad example.
Ah, so you're saying we should recognize whatever government has militarily occupied a territory?
It’s probably better to deal with reality than pretend this other guy is President because he said so
Ah, so we should probably go ahead and recognize ISIS as a sovereign Islamic State then, right?
The old Soviet System didn't recognize the rule of law and corruption was rampant. The new Russia is exactly the same. The fact that they weren't able to maintain programs that existed under the old Communist system after the collapse was just the inevitable result of a failed Communist state.
Russia needed a capitalistic system but to make that happen you have to have property rights and the rule of law. They don't have that precisely because of the Soviet system they lived under not because anything Clinton did or didn't do.
Russia needed a capitalist system but they had no infrastructure to do so but we needed to do it anyway, because. Brilliant.
Infrastructure? You think respect for the rule of laws comes from having roads and building? What are you talking about? Corruption was endemic in the old Soviet system. The Soviets went away, the rot and dysfunction corruption and the lack respect for the rule of law is what remained.
Fuck all you’re too stupid to understand the difference between the economic infrastructure capitalism requires (property rights, private credit networks, etc.) and infrastructure of roads and bridges. Just give up man.
Property rights are in fact, not economic infrastructure.
But it is a coup. The end goal is clearly for the military to depose Maduro and elevate this guy noone had heard of 48 hours ago.
We have no business meddling like that. Her statement is good and correct.
So you are on record as supporting a communist dictator rigging elections and using violence to suppress legitimate elections?
Ah yes, saying we have no business interventing there means I also support the dictatorship.
“We shouldn’t invade Iraq it will be a disaster”
“So you’re on record as supporting Saddam and his violent repression of his people? Traitor!!!”
Who said anything about invasion? Oh right, your conflating to make it a binary choice. I'm on record as saying we should condemn dictators using mass murder to stay in power. It's a wild fucking stance to take, I know.
Ok fine, condemn them. That’s it. I don’t have a problem with saying Maduro is bad.
But don’t intervene and recognize a different government. Not our business.
So do you think we shouldn't recognize Taiwan?
The nationalist government actually controls the island, unlike this guy in Venezuela. Bad example.
Ah, so you're saying we should recognize whatever government has militarily occupied a territory?
It’s probably better to deal with reality than pretend this other guy is President because he said so
Ah, so we should probably go ahead and recognize ISIS as a sovereign Islamic State then, right?
Well, considering that we helped create them by invading Iraq and fueling the insurgency against Assad, it would only be right.
Let’s keep expanding this so more extreme and absurd scenarios.
The old Soviet System didn't recognize the rule of law and corruption was rampant. The new Russia is exactly the same. The fact that they weren't able to maintain programs that existed under the old Communist system after the collapse was just the inevitable result of a failed Communist state.
Russia needed a capitalistic system but to make that happen you have to have property rights and the rule of law. They don't have that precisely because of the Soviet system they lived under not because anything Clinton did or didn't do.
Russia needed a capitalist system but they had no infrastructure to do so but we needed to do it anyway, because. Brilliant.
Infrastructure? You think respect for the rule of laws comes from having roads and building? What are you talking about? Corruption was endemic in the old Soviet system. The Soviets went away, the rot and dysfunction corruption and the lack respect for the rule of law is what remained.
Fuck all you’re too stupid to understand the difference between the economic infrastructure capitalism requires (property rights, private credit networks, etc.) and infrastructure of roads and bridges. Just give up man.
Property rights are in fact, not economic infrastructure.
Explain why semantics police.
They’re necessary in a capitalist system. That’s the point.
The old Soviet System didn't recognize the rule of law and corruption was rampant. The new Russia is exactly the same. The fact that they weren't able to maintain programs that existed under the old Communist system after the collapse was just the inevitable result of a failed Communist state.
Russia needed a capitalistic system but to make that happen you have to have property rights and the rule of law. They don't have that precisely because of the Soviet system they lived under not because anything Clinton did or didn't do.
Russia needed a capitalist system but they had no infrastructure to do so but we needed to do it anyway, because. Brilliant.
Infrastructure? You think respect for the rule of laws comes from having roads and building? What are you talking about? Corruption was endemic in the old Soviet system. The Soviets went away, the rot and dysfunction corruption and the lack respect for the rule of law is what remained.
Fuck all you’re too stupid to understand the difference between the economic infrastructure capitalism requires (property rights, private credit networks, etc.) and infrastructure of roads and bridges. Just give up man.
Hey dipshit. Read what the fuck you said. It wasn't clear what kind of "infrastructure" you were referring to thus my question. What were you talking about?
Now we know that you were referring to something that isn't infrastructure so tell me again who here is too fucking stupid to understand?
But it is a coup. The end goal is clearly for the military to depose Maduro and elevate this guy noone had heard of 48 hours ago.
We have no business meddling like that. Her statement is good and correct.
So you are on record as supporting a communist dictator rigging elections and using violence to suppress legitimate elections?
Ah yes, saying we have no business interventing there means I also support the dictatorship.
“We shouldn’t invade Iraq it will be a disaster”
“So you’re on record as supporting Saddam and his violent repression of his people? Traitor!!!”
Who said anything about invasion? Oh right, your conflating to make it a binary choice. I'm on record as saying we should condemn dictators using mass murder to stay in power. It's a wild fucking stance to take, I know.
Ok fine, condemn them. That’s it. I don’t have a problem with saying Maduro is bad.
But don’t intervene and recognize a different government. Not our business.
So do you think we shouldn't recognize Taiwan?
The nationalist government actually controls the island, unlike this guy in Venezuela. Bad example.
Ah, so you're saying we should recognize whatever government has militarily occupied a territory?
It’s probably better to deal with reality than pretend this other guy is President because he said so
Ah, so we should probably go ahead and recognize ISIS as a sovereign Islamic State then, right?
Well, considering that we helped create them by invading Iraq and fueling the insurgency against Assad, it would only be right.
Let’s keep expanding this so more extreme and absurd scenarios.
Well, that's kind of the point. I'm glad you are getting it. Your standard is arbitrary and only consistent with your idealogy as it favors different governments and is convenient in your mind.
But it is a coup. The end goal is clearly for the military to depose Maduro and elevate this guy noone had heard of 48 hours ago.
We have no business meddling like that. Her statement is good and correct.
So you are on record as supporting a communist dictator rigging elections and using violence to suppress legitimate elections?
Ah yes, saying we have no business interventing there means I also support the dictatorship.
“We shouldn’t invade Iraq it will be a disaster”
“So you’re on record as supporting Saddam and his violent repression of his people? Traitor!!!”
Who said anything about invasion? Oh right, your conflating to make it a binary choice. I'm on record as saying we should condemn dictators using mass murder to stay in power. It's a wild fucking stance to take, I know.
Ok fine, condemn them. That’s it. I don’t have a problem with saying Maduro is bad.
But don’t intervene and recognize a different government. Not our business.
So do you think we shouldn't recognize Taiwan?
The nationalist government actually controls the island, unlike this guy in Venezuela. Bad example.
Ah, so you're saying we should recognize whatever government has militarily occupied a territory?
It’s probably better to deal with reality than pretend this other guy is President because he said so
Ah, so we should probably go ahead and recognize ISIS as a sovereign Islamic State then, right?
Well, considering that we helped create them by invading Iraq and fueling the insurgency against Assad, it would only be right.
Let’s keep expanding this so more extreme and absurd scenarios.
Well, that's kind of the point. I'm glad you are getting it. Your standard is arbitrary and only consistent with your idealogy as it favors different governments and is convenient in your mind.
Uh no, my standard is consistent with non-interventionism, not ideology. If you haven’t noticed we’re pretty awful at interventions, no matter which type of government we’re deposing.
But it is a coup. The end goal is clearly for the military to depose Maduro and elevate this guy noone had heard of 48 hours ago.
We have no business meddling like that. Her statement is good and correct.
So you are on record as supporting a communist dictator rigging elections and using violence to suppress legitimate elections?
Ah yes, saying we have no business interventing there means I also support the dictatorship.
“We shouldn’t invade Iraq it will be a disaster”
“So you’re on record as supporting Saddam and his violent repression of his people? Traitor!!!”
Who said anything about invasion? Oh right, your conflating to make it a binary choice. I'm on record as saying we should condemn dictators using mass murder to stay in power. It's a wild fucking stance to take, I know.
Ok fine, condemn them. That’s it. I don’t have a problem with saying Maduro is bad.
But don’t intervene and recognize a different government. Not our business.
So do you think we shouldn't recognize Taiwan?
The nationalist government actually controls the island, unlike this guy in Venezuela. Bad example.
Ah, so you're saying we should recognize whatever government has militarily occupied a territory?
It’s probably better to deal with reality than pretend this other guy is President because he said so
Ah, so we should probably go ahead and recognize ISIS as a sovereign Islamic State then, right?
Well, considering that we helped create them by invading Iraq and fueling the insurgency against Assad, it would only be right.
Let’s keep expanding this so more extreme and absurd scenarios.
Well, that's kind of the point. I'm glad you are getting it. Your standard is arbitrary and only consistent with your idealogy as it favors different governments and is convenient in your mind.
Uh no, my standard is consistent with non-interventionism, not ideology. If you haven’t noticed we’re pretty awful at interventions, no matter which type of government we’re deposing.
Recognizing a government is interventionism? Better tell the South Koreans we are cutting diplomatic ties. Oh, wait, no, they have a military occupying their territory, I guess that makes them legitimate.
Good thing Israel occupies Palestine! No state or people with a right to self determination to see there. Gaza on the other hand...
But it is a coup. The end goal is clearly for the military to depose Maduro and elevate this guy noone had heard of 48 hours ago.
We have no business meddling like that. Her statement is good and correct.
So you are on record as supporting a communist dictator rigging elections and using violence to suppress legitimate elections?
Ah yes, saying we have no business interventing there means I also support the dictatorship.
“We shouldn’t invade Iraq it will be a disaster”
“So you’re on record as supporting Saddam and his violent repression of his people? Traitor!!!”
Who said anything about invasion? Oh right, your conflating to make it a binary choice. I'm on record as saying we should condemn dictators using mass murder to stay in power. It's a wild fucking stance to take, I know.
Ok fine, condemn them. That’s it. I don’t have a problem with saying Maduro is bad.
But don’t intervene and recognize a different government. Not our business.
So do you think we shouldn't recognize Taiwan?
The nationalist government actually controls the island, unlike this guy in Venezuela. Bad example.
Ah, so you're saying we should recognize whatever government has militarily occupied a territory?
It’s probably better to deal with reality than pretend this other guy is President because he said so
Ah, so we should probably go ahead and recognize ISIS as a sovereign Islamic State then, right?
Well, considering that we helped create them by invading Iraq and fueling the insurgency against Assad, it would only be right.
Let’s keep expanding this so more extreme and absurd scenarios.
Well, that's kind of the point. I'm glad you are getting it. Your standard is arbitrary and only consistent with your idealogy as it favors different governments and is convenient in your mind.
Uh no, my standard is consistent with non-interventionism, not ideology. If you haven’t noticed we’re pretty awful at interventions, no matter which type of government we’re deposing.
Recognizing a government is interventionism?
Recognizing an opposition faction that doesn’t control the country as the legitimate government is intervening.
Recognizing, uh, Canada is not intervention. Nor is recognizing North Korea. You’re as incoherent as Bob.
The old Soviet System didn't recognize the rule of law and corruption was rampant. The new Russia is exactly the same. The fact that they weren't able to maintain programs that existed under the old Communist system after the collapse was just the inevitable result of a failed Communist state.
Russia needed a capitalistic system but to make that happen you have to have property rights and the rule of law. They don't have that precisely because of the Soviet system they lived under not because anything Clinton did or didn't do.
Russia needed a capitalist system but they had no infrastructure to do so but we needed to do it anyway, because. Brilliant.
Infrastructure? You think respect for the rule of laws comes from having roads and building? What are you talking about? Corruption was endemic in the old Soviet system. The Soviets went away, the rot and dysfunction corruption and the lack respect for the rule of law is what remained.
Fuck all you’re too stupid to understand the difference between the economic infrastructure capitalism requires (property rights, private credit networks, etc.) and infrastructure of roads and bridges. Just give up man.
Property rights are in fact, not economic infrastructure.
Explain why semantics police.
They’re necessary in a capitalist system. That’s the point.
Sure, that still doesn't make them economic infrastructure.
If you are going to argue that your position is more economically educated than that of someone with an economics background you should probably be using vocabulary that adheres to the science and subject, because, you are supposed to be the more knowledgeable one.
What is Infrastructure? Infrastructure is the term for the basic physical systems of a business or nation — transportation, communication, sewage, water and electric systems are all examples of infrastructure. These systems tend to be high-cost investments and are vital to a country's economic development and prosperity. Projects related to infrastructure improvements may be funded publicly, privately or through public-private partnerships.
And you should probably not be using an example which inherently DOESN'T require property rights such as infrastructure, which can quite easily be state owned even in a mostly capitalistic country.
P.s. there is a term for non-physical entities such as property rights but I'm just too stupid to know it. Maybe you could tell us all what that term you must have decided not to use is and why you decided to use a contradictory term instead.
Recognizing an opposition faction that doesn’t control the country as the legitimate government is intervening.
I'll take ridiculously broad interpretations of the word "intervening" for $500 Alex. Using your standard you could say recognizing Maduro is also "intervening."
Unless you take a neutral stance and recognize nobody, you're "intervening" under your definition of the word.
Btw if you really want to talk about incoherence, lets re-visit your claims about Clinton "gutting" Welfare.
But it is a coup. The end goal is clearly for the military to depose Maduro and elevate this guy noone had heard of 48 hours ago.
We have no business meddling like that. Her statement is good and correct.
So you are on record as supporting a communist dictator rigging elections and using violence to suppress legitimate elections?
Ah yes, saying we have no business interventing there means I also support the dictatorship.
“We shouldn’t invade Iraq it will be a disaster”
“So you’re on record as supporting Saddam and his violent repression of his people? Traitor!!!”
Who said anything about invasion? Oh right, your conflating to make it a binary choice. I'm on record as saying we should condemn dictators using mass murder to stay in power. It's a wild fucking stance to take, I know.
Ok fine, condemn them. That’s it. I don’t have a problem with saying Maduro is bad.
But don’t intervene and recognize a different government. Not our business.
Arguing for State Independence and autonomy seems inconsistent coming from you no border globalists
Comments
Let’s keep expanding this so more extreme and absurd scenarios.
They’re necessary in a capitalist system. That’s the point.
Now we know that you were referring to something that isn't infrastructure so tell me again who here is too fucking stupid to understand?
Good thing Israel occupies Palestine! No state or people with a right to self determination to see there. Gaza on the other hand...
Recognizing, uh, Canada is not intervention. Nor is recognizing North Korea. You’re as incoherent as Bob.
If you are going to argue that your position is more economically educated than that of someone with an economics background you should probably be using vocabulary that adheres to the science and subject, because, you are supposed to be the more knowledgeable one.
What is Infrastructure?
Infrastructure is the term for the basic physical systems of a business or nation — transportation, communication, sewage, water and electric systems are all examples of infrastructure. These systems tend to be high-cost investments and are vital to a country's economic development and prosperity. Projects related to infrastructure improvements may be funded publicly, privately or through public-private partnerships.
And you should probably not be using an example which inherently DOESN'T require property rights such as infrastructure, which can quite easily be state owned even in a mostly capitalistic country.
P.s. there is a term for non-physical entities such as property rights but I'm just too stupid to know it. Maybe you could tell us all what that term you must have decided not to use is and why you decided to use a contradictory term instead.
I'll take ridiculously broad interpretations of the word "intervening" for $500 Alex. Using your standard you could say recognizing Maduro is also "intervening."
Unless you take a neutral stance and recognize nobody, you're "intervening" under your definition of the word.
Btw if you really want to talk about incoherence, lets re-visit your claims about Clinton "gutting" Welfare.