2024 vice president candidate heard from
Comments
-
Bullshit!HardlyClothed said:
Ha, “misty eyed”. The old Soviet union was not a good place to live. But for the average citizen, modern Russia is worse in many ways. This isn’t really a contested position.SFGbob said:
Is this guy seriously getting misty eyed over the demise of the Soviet Union? Any possibility that gangsterism and theft that arose after the collapse Russian Communism was a direct result of the Soviet system that they had lived under for nearly 80 years?HardlyClothed said:
Yes, corruption was the biggest problem and the downfall of the Soviet Union. Not disputing that.RaceBannon said:
That's actually not different at allHardlyClothed said:
Well one basic difference is that the enormous wealth is held privately by a priveleged few and not controlled by the state.RaceBannon said:
If he revived the Soviet Union? Yes, that's what I wroteHardlyClothed said:Putin is a right-wing nationalist leading an oligarchy of billionaires who made their money by acquiring (stealing) state assets during post-Soviet privatization.
But the left would love him.
What's the difference between Putin and your run of the mill commie? They stole the assets the commies had stolen. Its still the state uber alles
In old Soviet Union some people were always more equal than others and the "state" was the thugs who ran the party and lived in fabulous Dachas
There is more wealth now so that's different
Before the fall in ‘91 the average person was better off than they are now due to flawed but effective state programs. Privatization in the mid 90s led to the biggest decline in life expectancy (outside of war) in the entire 20th century as those services were cut and state owned assets were snatched up by the current oligarchs. The Clinton admin mangled the post-Soviet economic transition. -
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.HardlyClothed said:
Ah yes, saying we have no business interventing there means I also support the dictatorship.UW_Doog_Bot said:
So you are on record as supporting a communist dictator rigging elections and using violence to suppress legitimate elections?HardlyClothed said: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.
“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!!!” -
How is life in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungry and what was formally East Germany?HardlyClothed said:
Ha, “misty eyed”. The old Soviet union was not a good place to live. But for the average citizen, modern Russia is worse in many ways. This isn’t really a contested position.SFGbob said:
Is this guy seriously getting misty eyed over the demise of the Soviet Union? Any possibility that gangsterism and theft that arose after the collapse Russian Communism was a direct result of the Soviet system that they had lived under for nearly 80 years?HardlyClothed said:
Yes, corruption was the biggest problem and the downfall of the Soviet Union. Not disputing that.RaceBannon said:
That's actually not different at allHardlyClothed said:
Well one basic difference is that the enormous wealth is held privately by a priveleged few and not controlled by the state.RaceBannon said:
If he revived the Soviet Union? Yes, that's what I wroteHardlyClothed said:Putin is a right-wing nationalist leading an oligarchy of billionaires who made their money by acquiring (stealing) state assets during post-Soviet privatization.
But the left would love him.
What's the difference between Putin and your run of the mill commie? They stole the assets the commies had stolen. Its still the state uber alles
In old Soviet Union some people were always more equal than others and the "state" was the thugs who ran the party and lived in fabulous Dachas
There is more wealth now so that's different
Before the fall in ‘91 the average person was better off than they are now due to flawed but effective state programs. Privatization in the mid 90s led to the biggest decline in life expectancy (outside of war) in the entire 20th century as those services were cut and state owned assets were snatched up by the current oligarchs. The Clinton admin mangled the post-Soviet economic transition.
Soviet era communism is responsible for how fucked up Russia is today, blaming Clinton or the west or the US for how screwed up they are today is bullshit.
-
Ok fine, condemn them. That’s it. I don’t have a problem with saying Maduro is bad.UW_Doog_Bot said:
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.HardlyClothed said:
Ah yes, saying we have no business interventing there means I also support the dictatorship.UW_Doog_Bot said:
So you are on record as supporting a communist dictator rigging elections and using violence to suppress legitimate elections?HardlyClothed said: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.
“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!!!”
But don’t intervene and recognize a different government. Not our business. -
So do you think we shouldn't recognize Taiwan?HardlyClothed said:
Ok fine, condemn them. That’s it. I don’t have a problem with saying Maduro is bad.UW_Doog_Bot said:
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.HardlyClothed said:
Ah yes, saying we have no business interventing there means I also support the dictatorship.UW_Doog_Bot said:
So you are on record as supporting a communist dictator rigging elections and using violence to suppress legitimate elections?HardlyClothed said: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.
“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!!!”
But don’t intervene and recognize a different government. Not our business. -
You mean don't recognize a different government when the old government is a Socialist government that you support.HardlyClothed said:
Ok fine, condemn them. That’s it. I don’t have a problem with saying Maduro is bad.UW_Doog_Bot said:
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.HardlyClothed said:
Ah yes, saying we have no business interventing there means I also support the dictatorship.UW_Doog_Bot said:
So you are on record as supporting a communist dictator rigging elections and using violence to suppress legitimate elections?HardlyClothed said: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.
“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!!!”
But don’t intervene and recognize a different government. Not our business. -
It’s both the soviet legacy and the mismanaged transition you dunce. Clinton intervened in ‘96 to save drunk off his ass Yeltsin against a communist party election victory. Putin, protege of Yeltsin, stepped in after Yeltsin’s government went to shit, predictably.SFGbob said:
How is life in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungry and what was formally East Germany?HardlyClothed said:
Ha, “misty eyed”. The old Soviet union was not a good place to live. But for the average citizen, modern Russia is worse in many ways. This isn’t really a contested position.SFGbob said:
Is this guy seriously getting misty eyed over the demise of the Soviet Union? Any possibility that gangsterism and theft that arose after the collapse Russian Communism was a direct result of the Soviet system that they had lived under for nearly 80 years?HardlyClothed said:
Yes, corruption was the biggest problem and the downfall of the Soviet Union. Not disputing that.RaceBannon said:
That's actually not different at allHardlyClothed said:
Well one basic difference is that the enormous wealth is held privately by a priveleged few and not controlled by the state.RaceBannon said:
If he revived the Soviet Union? Yes, that's what I wroteHardlyClothed said:Putin is a right-wing nationalist leading an oligarchy of billionaires who made their money by acquiring (stealing) state assets during post-Soviet privatization.
But the left would love him.
What's the difference between Putin and your run of the mill commie? They stole the assets the commies had stolen. Its still the state uber alles
In old Soviet Union some people were always more equal than others and the "state" was the thugs who ran the party and lived in fabulous Dachas
There is more wealth now so that's different
Before the fall in ‘91 the average person was better off than they are now due to flawed but effective state programs. Privatization in the mid 90s led to the biggest decline in life expectancy (outside of war) in the entire 20th century as those services were cut and state owned assets were snatched up by the current oligarchs. The Clinton admin mangled the post-Soviet economic transition.
Soviet era communism is responsible for how fucked up Russia is today, blaming Clinton or the west or the US for how screwed up they are today is bullshit. -
I start the best threads. People always comment on how great the threads I start are
-
The nationalist government actually controls the island, unlike this guy in Venezuela. Bad example.UW_Doog_Bot said:
So do you think we shouldn't recognize Taiwan?HardlyClothed said:
Ok fine, condemn them. That’s it. I don’t have a problem with saying Maduro is bad.UW_Doog_Bot said:
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.HardlyClothed said:
Ah yes, saying we have no business interventing there means I also support the dictatorship.UW_Doog_Bot said:
So you are on record as supporting a communist dictator rigging elections and using violence to suppress legitimate elections?HardlyClothed said: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.
“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!!!”
But don’t intervene and recognize a different government. Not our business. -
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. -
Ah, so you're saying we should recognize whatever government has militarily occupied a territory?HardlyClothed said:
The nationalist government actually controls the island, unlike this guy in Venezuela. Bad example.UW_Doog_Bot said:
So do you think we shouldn't recognize Taiwan?HardlyClothed said:
Ok fine, condemn them. That’s it. I don’t have a problem with saying Maduro is bad.UW_Doog_Bot said:
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.HardlyClothed said:
Ah yes, saying we have no business interventing there means I also support the dictatorship.UW_Doog_Bot said:
So you are on record as supporting a communist dictator rigging elections and using violence to suppress legitimate elections?HardlyClothed said: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.
“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!!!”
But don’t intervene and recognize a different government. Not our business. -
Russia needed a capitalist system but they had no infrastructure to do so but we needed to do it anyway, because. Brilliant.SFGbob said: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. -
It’s probably better to deal with reality than pretend this other guy is President because he said soUW_Doog_Bot said:
Ah, so you're saying we should recognize whatever government has militarily occupied a territory?HardlyClothed said:
The nationalist government actually controls the island, unlike this guy in Venezuela. Bad example.UW_Doog_Bot said:
So do you think we shouldn't recognize Taiwan?HardlyClothed said:
Ok fine, condemn them. That’s it. I don’t have a problem with saying Maduro is bad.UW_Doog_Bot said:
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.HardlyClothed said:
Ah yes, saying we have no business interventing there means I also support the dictatorship.UW_Doog_Bot said:
So you are on record as supporting a communist dictator rigging elections and using violence to suppress legitimate elections?HardlyClothed said: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.
“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!!!”
But don’t intervene and recognize a different government. Not our business. -
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.HardlyClothed said:
Russia needed a capitalist system but they had no infrastructure to do so but we needed to do it anyway, because. Brilliant.SFGbob said: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. -
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.SFGbob said:
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.HardlyClothed said:
Russia needed a capitalist system but they had no infrastructure to do so but we needed to do it anyway, because. Brilliant.SFGbob said: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. -
Ah, so we should probably go ahead and recognize ISIS as a sovereign Islamic State then, right?HardlyClothed said:
It’s probably better to deal with reality than pretend this other guy is President because he said soUW_Doog_Bot said:
Ah, so you're saying we should recognize whatever government has militarily occupied a territory?HardlyClothed said:
The nationalist government actually controls the island, unlike this guy in Venezuela. Bad example.UW_Doog_Bot said:
So do you think we shouldn't recognize Taiwan?HardlyClothed said:
Ok fine, condemn them. That’s it. I don’t have a problem with saying Maduro is bad.UW_Doog_Bot said:
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.HardlyClothed said:
Ah yes, saying we have no business interventing there means I also support the dictatorship.UW_Doog_Bot said:
So you are on record as supporting a communist dictator rigging elections and using violence to suppress legitimate elections?HardlyClothed said: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.
“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!!!”
But don’t intervene and recognize a different government. Not our business. -
Property rights are in fact, not economic infrastructure.HardlyClothed said:
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.SFGbob said:
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.HardlyClothed said:
Russia needed a capitalist system but they had no infrastructure to do so but we needed to do it anyway, because. Brilliant.SFGbob said: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. -
Well, considering that we helped create them by invading Iraq and fueling the insurgency against Assad, it would only be right.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Ah, so we should probably go ahead and recognize ISIS as a sovereign Islamic State then, right?HardlyClothed said:
It’s probably better to deal with reality than pretend this other guy is President because he said soUW_Doog_Bot said:
Ah, so you're saying we should recognize whatever government has militarily occupied a territory?HardlyClothed said:
The nationalist government actually controls the island, unlike this guy in Venezuela. Bad example.UW_Doog_Bot said:
So do you think we shouldn't recognize Taiwan?HardlyClothed said:
Ok fine, condemn them. That’s it. I don’t have a problem with saying Maduro is bad.UW_Doog_Bot said:
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.HardlyClothed said:
Ah yes, saying we have no business interventing there means I also support the dictatorship.UW_Doog_Bot said:
So you are on record as supporting a communist dictator rigging elections and using violence to suppress legitimate elections?HardlyClothed said: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.
“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!!!”
But don’t intervene and recognize a different government. Not our business.
Let’s keep expanding this so more extreme and absurd scenarios. -
Explain why semantics police.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Property rights are in fact, not economic infrastructure.HardlyClothed said:
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.SFGbob said:
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.HardlyClothed said:
Russia needed a capitalist system but they had no infrastructure to do so but we needed to do it anyway, because. Brilliant.SFGbob said: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.
They’re necessary in a capitalist system. That’s the point. -
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?HardlyClothed said:
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.SFGbob said:
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.HardlyClothed said:
Russia needed a capitalist system but they had no infrastructure to do so but we needed to do it anyway, because. Brilliant.SFGbob said: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.
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? -
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.HardlyClothed said:
Well, considering that we helped create them by invading Iraq and fueling the insurgency against Assad, it would only be right.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Ah, so we should probably go ahead and recognize ISIS as a sovereign Islamic State then, right?HardlyClothed said:
It’s probably better to deal with reality than pretend this other guy is President because he said soUW_Doog_Bot said:
Ah, so you're saying we should recognize whatever government has militarily occupied a territory?HardlyClothed said:
The nationalist government actually controls the island, unlike this guy in Venezuela. Bad example.UW_Doog_Bot said:
So do you think we shouldn't recognize Taiwan?HardlyClothed said:
Ok fine, condemn them. That’s it. I don’t have a problem with saying Maduro is bad.UW_Doog_Bot said:
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.HardlyClothed said:
Ah yes, saying we have no business interventing there means I also support the dictatorship.UW_Doog_Bot said:
So you are on record as supporting a communist dictator rigging elections and using violence to suppress legitimate elections?HardlyClothed said: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.
“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!!!”
But don’t intervene and recognize a different government. Not our business.
Let’s keep expanding this so more extreme and absurd scenarios. -
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.UW_Doog_Bot said:
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.HardlyClothed said:
Well, considering that we helped create them by invading Iraq and fueling the insurgency against Assad, it would only be right.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Ah, so we should probably go ahead and recognize ISIS as a sovereign Islamic State then, right?HardlyClothed said:
It’s probably better to deal with reality than pretend this other guy is President because he said soUW_Doog_Bot said:
Ah, so you're saying we should recognize whatever government has militarily occupied a territory?HardlyClothed said:
The nationalist government actually controls the island, unlike this guy in Venezuela. Bad example.UW_Doog_Bot said:
So do you think we shouldn't recognize Taiwan?HardlyClothed said:
Ok fine, condemn them. That’s it. I don’t have a problem with saying Maduro is bad.UW_Doog_Bot said:
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.HardlyClothed said:
Ah yes, saying we have no business interventing there means I also support the dictatorship.UW_Doog_Bot said:
So you are on record as supporting a communist dictator rigging elections and using violence to suppress legitimate elections?HardlyClothed said: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.
“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!!!”
But don’t intervene and recognize a different government. Not our business.
Let’s keep expanding this so more extreme and absurd scenarios. -
Go ahead and explain how individual property rights are not part of the base economic infrastructure required for capitalism
-
So why are you always in favor of systems that destroy property rights?HardlyClothed said:Go ahead and explain how individual property rights are not part of the base economic infrastructure required for capitalism
-
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.HardlyClothed said:
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.UW_Doog_Bot said:
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.HardlyClothed said:
Well, considering that we helped create them by invading Iraq and fueling the insurgency against Assad, it would only be right.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Ah, so we should probably go ahead and recognize ISIS as a sovereign Islamic State then, right?HardlyClothed said:
It’s probably better to deal with reality than pretend this other guy is President because he said soUW_Doog_Bot said:
Ah, so you're saying we should recognize whatever government has militarily occupied a territory?HardlyClothed said:
The nationalist government actually controls the island, unlike this guy in Venezuela. Bad example.UW_Doog_Bot said:
So do you think we shouldn't recognize Taiwan?HardlyClothed said:
Ok fine, condemn them. That’s it. I don’t have a problem with saying Maduro is bad.UW_Doog_Bot said:
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.HardlyClothed said:
Ah yes, saying we have no business interventing there means I also support the dictatorship.UW_Doog_Bot said:
So you are on record as supporting a communist dictator rigging elections and using violence to suppress legitimate elections?HardlyClothed said: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.
“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!!!”
But don’t intervene and recognize a different government. Not our business.
Let’s keep expanding this so more extreme and absurd scenarios.
Good thing Israel occupies Palestine! No state or people with a right to self determination to see there. Gaza on the other hand... -
Recognizing an opposition faction that doesn’t control the country as the legitimate government is intervening.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Recognizing a government is interventionism?HardlyClothed said:
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.UW_Doog_Bot said:
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.HardlyClothed said:
Well, considering that we helped create them by invading Iraq and fueling the insurgency against Assad, it would only be right.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Ah, so we should probably go ahead and recognize ISIS as a sovereign Islamic State then, right?HardlyClothed said:
It’s probably better to deal with reality than pretend this other guy is President because he said soUW_Doog_Bot said:
Ah, so you're saying we should recognize whatever government has militarily occupied a territory?HardlyClothed said:
The nationalist government actually controls the island, unlike this guy in Venezuela. Bad example.UW_Doog_Bot said:
So do you think we shouldn't recognize Taiwan?HardlyClothed said:
Ok fine, condemn them. That’s it. I don’t have a problem with saying Maduro is bad.UW_Doog_Bot said:
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.HardlyClothed said:
Ah yes, saying we have no business interventing there means I also support the dictatorship.UW_Doog_Bot said:
So you are on record as supporting a communist dictator rigging elections and using violence to suppress legitimate elections?HardlyClothed said: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.
“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!!!”
But don’t intervene and recognize a different government. Not our business.
Let’s keep expanding this so more extreme and absurd scenarios.
Recognizing, uh, Canada is not intervention. Nor is recognizing North Korea. You’re as incoherent as Bob. -
Venezuelan Ahmed Chalabi we put our undying faith in you
-
Sure, that still doesn't make them economic infrastructure.HardlyClothed said:
Explain why semantics police.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Property rights are in fact, not economic infrastructure.HardlyClothed said:
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.SFGbob said:
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.HardlyClothed said:
Russia needed a capitalist system but they had no infrastructure to do so but we needed to do it anyway, because. Brilliant.SFGbob said: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.
They’re necessary in a capitalist system. That’s the point.
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. -
Arguing for State Independence and autonomy seems inconsistent coming from you no border globalistsHardlyClothed said:
Ok fine, condemn them. That’s it. I don’t have a problem with saying Maduro is bad.UW_Doog_Bot said:
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.HardlyClothed said:
Ah yes, saying we have no business interventing there means I also support the dictatorship.UW_Doog_Bot said:
So you are on record as supporting a communist dictator rigging elections and using violence to suppress legitimate elections?HardlyClothed said: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.
“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!!!”
But don’t intervene and recognize a different government. Not our business.
