John McCain Discontinuing Medical Treatment

[DC Tom]

2 minutes ago, The_Dude said:

 

You’re an idiot. 

 

I know and have studied WWI from a diplomatic perspective and I asked a professor friend of mine for a book on the monarchal aspects of the conflict. 

 

I dont care to debate a man on battle tactics who’s never heard the clap or zing of a bullet as it just barely misses him. I have no desire to talk tactics with a man who has never heard the sound of indirect fire making that “swooshing” sound — “silent death” my ass. You can hear it. And I have. You are an old man who’s read about things I’ve done. Nothing more. 

 

And I'm sure your "diplomatic perspective" is just as !@#$ed as your perspective on every other subject.  You apparently have a mind like a blotter: absorbs everything, but gets it all smeared and backwards.

 

And I don't care to debate doctrine with someone who defines it as "bullets."  Go read some of my writing if you want to learn anything.  Otherwise wallow in your ignorance, chucklehead.

[TakeYouToTasker]

6 minutes ago, The_Dude said:

 

No, you don’t know what you’re talking about. Economic thought and criticizing communism may entail some examples but it’s not a history book. You deserve no respect and you’ll get none from me. By the way, if you’re ever in Atlanta let me know — I’d love to meet you. And down here — we carry! 

 

 

LOL

 

So now you've made threats to pistol whip me, eat me, slap me with the back of your hand, and have escalated to shooting me.

 

Truly the mark of a man with strong moral backing, and an argument worth considering.

 

Well done.

 

Equally impressive is that you've dismissed a work of economic, philosophical, and historical considerations on par with the works of Mill, Hobbes, Locke etc. without blinking because "reasons".

 

Bravo.

 

Oh, but hey, while I have you here, you made a definitive statement that Stalin's actions in the Ukraine weren't driven by economic policy.

 

Would you mind answering a few question to back that assertion?

 

Explain:

 

-  How Stalin's desire to put down budding nationalist sentiment in the Ukraine to bring it under tighter Soviet control wasn't an economic position.

 

-  How the execution of class warfare against the Kulaks wasn't an economic position.

 

-  How the forced collectivization of farms wasn't an economic position.

 

-  How the putting down of the Ukrainian rebellion when they resisted collectivization wasn't an economic position.

 

-  How the sale of Ukrainian grain to foreign markets in pursuit of Stalin's Five Year Plan wasn't an economic position.

 

Once you're done with that, explain how as these things failed because the people resisted, Stalin taking increasingly brutal action in pursuit of his goals was not the result of the economic policy he pursued.

 

Thanks!

[The_Dude]

Just now, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

LOL

 

So now you've made threats to pistol whip me, eat me, slap me with the back of your hand, and have escalated to shooting me.

 

Truly the mark of a man with strong moral backing, and an argument worth considering.

 

Well done.

 

Equally impressive is that you've dismissed a work of economic, philosophical, and historical considerations on par with the works of Mill, Hobbes, Locke etc. without blinking because "reasons".

 

Bravo.

 

Oh, but hey, while I have you here, you made a definitive statement that Stalin's actions in the Ukraine weren't driven by economic policy.

 

Would you mind answering a few question to back that assertion?

 

Explain:

 

-  How Stalin's desire to put down budding nationalist sentiment in the Ukraine to bring it under tighter Soviet control wasn't an economic position.

 

-  How the execution of class warfare against the Kulaks wasn't an economic position.

 

-  How the forced collectivization of farms wasn't an economic position.

 

-  How the putting down of the Ukrainian rebellion when they resisted collectivization wasn't an economic position.

 

-  How the sale of Ukrainian grain to foreign markets in pursuit of Stalin's Five Year Plan wasn't an economic position.

 

Once you're done with that, explain how as these things failed because the people resisted, Stalin taking increasingly brutal action in pursuit of his goals was not the result of the economic policy he pursued.

 

Thanks!

 

I know you worked all day/night on this but no. 

 

Im not going to spend two-three hours of doin the research to counter your Russian propaganda. 

 

Genocide was part of Stalin’s plan to industrialize — yes. But that doesn’t make genocide a product of his economics. It was willful genocide just like the holocaust. To call it anything else is idiotic. 

 

When I kick your ass, nobody will say ‘that was just economics.’ They’ll call it willful violence. 

 

If you ever ever come to Atlanta let me know. We carry down here, pumpkin. 

[DC Tom]

8 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

LOL

 

So now you've made threats to pistol whip me, eat me, slap me with the back of your hand, and have escalated to shooting me.

 

Truly the mark of a man with strong moral backing, and an argument worth considering.

 

Well done.

 

He'll also slap you with his degree, I'm sure...

 

Y'know...I wish I had the wall space for all the "Contratulations, You're Smart!" pieces of parchment I have.  I ran out of space to hang them years ago.

 

10 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

Equally impressive is that you've dismissed a work of economic, philosophical, and historical considerations on par with the works of Mill, Hobbes, Locke etc. without blinking because "reasons".

 

Not just "reasons."  But because "It's not history!" 

 

He wouldn't understand Hayek anyway.  He'd argue it misuses words such as "socialism" and "liberalism," and insist his understanding is better because "I have a degree!!!!"

9 minutes ago, The_Dude said:

<<some bull ****>>

 

Have another toke, loser.

[The_Dude]

11 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

LOL

 

So now you've made threats to pistol whip me, eat me, slap me with the back of your hand, and have escalated to shooting me.

 

Truly the mark of a man with strong moral backing, and an argument worth considering.

 

Well done.

 

Equally impressive is that you've dismissed a work of economic, philosophical, and historical considerations on par with the works of Mill, Hobbes, Locke etc. without blinking because "reasons".

 

Bravo.

 

Oh, but hey, while I have you here, you made a definitive statement that Stalin's actions in the Ukraine weren't driven by economic policy.

 

Would you mind answering a few question to back that assertion?

 

Explain:

 

-  How Stalin's desire to put down budding nationalist sentiment in the Ukraine to bring it under tighter Soviet control wasn't an economic position.

 

-  How the execution of class warfare against the Kulaks wasn't an economic position.

 

-  How the forced collectivization of farms wasn't an economic position.

 

-  How the putting down of the Ukrainian rebellion when they resisted collectivization wasn't an economic position.

 

-  How the sale of Ukrainian grain to foreign markets in pursuit of Stalin's Five Year Plan wasn't an economic position.

 

Once you're done with that, explain how as these things failed because the people resisted, Stalin taking increasingly brutal action in pursuit of his goals was not the result of the economic policy he pursued.

 

Thanks!

 

Stalins 5 year plans can and should be considered economic reforms with an emphasis on industrializing the nation. It worked. 

 

He NEEDLESSLY starved, imprisoned, and executed millions in doing this. His crime against humanity is not economics. I need say no more than that. Genocide isn’t economics. 

 

Further, your dumbass friend, Tom, argued that the unintended results of the mass killings of sparrows was “economics.” It isn’t. It was a shortsighted move that Mao made in which he was told repeatedly not to do. It was an unintended consequence that had the opposite effect of its intent. Not economics. 

1 minute ago, DC Tom said:

 

He'll also slap you with his degree, I'm sure...

 

Y'know...I wish I had the wall space for all the "Contratulations, You're Smart!" pieces of parchment I have.  I ran out of space to hang them years ago.

 

 

Not just "reasons."  But because "It's not history!" 

 

He wouldn't understand Hayek anyway.  He'd argue it misuses words such as "socialism" and "liberalism," and insist his understanding is better because "I have a degree!!!!"

 

Have another toke, loser.

 

Tommy, I never stated I’m superior because I have a degree. By odds, 33% of the posters here do, and probably 20-25% have advanced degrees. But this conversation is my AO and I won’t entertain debates that are closed cases. 

 

Im as humble as I am cocky. 

 

And yeah, keep the weed-hate going, idiot. On economics, wouldn’t legal weed just be awful? Idiot. 

I’ve seriously chastised myself the last two days because I’ve let my production fall because of message board arguments with unemployed people. 

 

?‍♂️

 

God, it’s not worth it. Think what ya want old man?

[njbuff]

Boy, the left’s hypocrisy NEVER ends.

 

I looked it up and did they ever HATE McCain when he ran against their Golden Child.

 

Now, he is an American hero to them.

 

Cant make this sh/t up. 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

2 hours ago, The_Dude said:

 

I just googled because I was curious about your "book." Ya know why I'm not familiar with it? Because it's not a history book. I mean, if Hayek stays relevant for a couple hundred more years you could cite it as a primary source and such, but it's not a !@#$ing history book. 

 

See, the title intrigued me because if the book was about Stalin starving folks, based on the name I figured 'maybe the author is arguing that Stalin's actions continued the serfdom that the Bolshevik's promised to rid Russia of.' And that's an argument I could enjoy. But that's not what the book is about. It's not even about Stalin. 

 

So your book, is not a book on what happened during the incident we're talking about. It's a man arguing his thoughts. And what's really funny is that if you click on the reception on Wikipedia the first name that comes up is the very neo-liberal economist who I pointed to in the beginning debating your know-nothing-dumbass, Keynes. Keynes who's economic thought was influential on FDR and whose theories helped bring the country out of the Great Depression (que the rapid conservatives who mention WWII -- and they're not wrong accept when they try to take credit from Keynes) and Obama used Keynesian economics to bring us out of the great recession. 

 

You're a know-nothing with a google search engine. Sure, you're clever, but you're a know-nothing. 

 

Great book to back your point about what happened, lol. !@#$in' idiot. 

I've been really fascinated reading the back and forth here, TYTT or DCTom citing Friedman or Solzhenitsyn, you referencing what appears to be "The Works of Mrs. Doubtfire".  What bothers me is this:  why did you include the word book in quotation marks above?  Were you quoting Task?  Was it sarcasm?  Was it a message to the rest of us?  A cryptic clue?  Is it not really a book at all, just a series of novellas like Stephen King's "Different Seasons"? Because, interestingly, "Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption" appeared in that series, and it's a little known fact that Stephen King actually crafted that novela (aka "book") after reading the works of Leo Tolstoy. 

 

As Tolstoy was Russian, though not a Stalinist, it seems reasonable that Stephen King should be investigated for collusion with the Russians.

 

Is that where you were going with all that?  

 

 

 

 

[4merper4mer]

5 hours ago, The_Dude said:

 

 

 

I’m unfamiliar with the author. Actually, I rarely consider the author when reading unless I’m a fanboy of the author. Right now I’m reading a phenomenal book on WWI, The Guns of August, and I couldn’t tell you the authors name. Some woman. British I’d wager too based on the constant, repetitive theme of the book that the whole shindig got started because of the Kaiser being a dick, and trying to compensate for his little hand. 

 

Hayek seems as dumb as a box of rocks to me but I haven't read anything of hers.  She uses a dumb fake accent in interviews. Some people think she is hot but meh.

[Nanker]

Back to the funeral, the great media hero not only disinvited the personal enemy Trump, but he disinvited his running mate Sarah Palin too. 

 

Hot it or not?

 

Edited August 30, 2018 by Nanker
Gender identity

[BringBackOrton]

15 hours ago, The_Dude said:

 

Stalins 5 year plans can and should be considered economic reforms with an emphasis on industrializing the nation. It worked. 

 

He NEEDLESSLY starved, imprisoned, and executed millions in doing this. His crime against humanity is not economics. I need say no more than that. Genocide isn’t economics. 

 

Further, your dumbass friend, Tom, argued that the unintended results of the mass killings of sparrows was “economics.” It isn’t. It was a shortsighted move that Mao made in which he was told repeatedly not to do. It was an unintended consequence that had the opposite effect of its intent. Not economics. 

 

Tommy, I never stated I’m superior because I have a degree. By odds, 33% of the posters here do, and probably 20-25% have advanced degrees. But this conversation is my AO and I won’t entertain debates that are closed cases. 

 

Im as humble as I am cocky. 

 

And yeah, keep the weed-hate going, idiot. On economics, wouldn’t legal weed just be awful? Idiot. 

I’ve seriously chastised myself the last two days because I’ve let my production fall because of message board arguments with unemployed people. 

 

?‍♂️

 

God, it’s not worth it. Think what ya want old man?

Where did you get your degree? They may send you a letter, each post is devaluing it more and more.

[3rdnlng]

16 hours ago, 4merper4mer said:

I rather read Hayek than listen to her annoying voice, that's for sure.

I've totally lost what little respect I had for you. If you don't like to listen to her voice just ask her to hum a little something for you.

[TakeYouToTasker]

15 hours ago, The_Dude said:

 

Stalins 5 year plans can and should be considered economic reforms with an emphasis on industrializing the nation. It worked. 

 

He NEEDLESSLY starved, imprisoned, and executed millions in doing this. His crime against humanity is not economics. I need say no more than that. Genocide isn’t economics. 

 

Further, your dumbass friend, Tom, argued that the unintended results of the mass killings of sparrows was “economics.” It isn’t. It was a shortsighted move that Mao made in which he was told repeatedly not to do. It was an unintended consequence that had the opposite effect of its intent. Not economics. 

 

As much as I have been enjoying watching you slam your dick in a door over the last few pages of this thread, I am compelled to help you sort out all of this stupid.

 

You keep claiming that genocide isn't economics, which is dead wrong, but you've set your mind to it for some reason I can't begin to understand.

 

So, I'll try a different tack:  what, exactly, do you think economics is?

[DC Tom]

 

15 hours ago, The_Dude said:

 

Further, your dumbass friend, Tom, argued that the unintended results of the mass killings of sparrows was “economics.” It isn’t. It was a shortsighted move that Mao made in which he was told repeatedly not to do. It was an unintended consequence that had the opposite effect of its intent. Not economics. 

 

 

You unbelievable dunce.  Here is what you asked:

 

On 8/28/2018 at 6:20 PM, The_Dude said:

 

But again, what Marxist ECONOMIC reforms led to the deaths of millions. I really wanna know. Tell me. 

 

 

 

Collectivization in the Soviet Union - twice - was a Marxist ECONOMIC reform that led to the deaths of millions.  

[The_Dude]

43 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

 

You unbelievable dunce.  Here is what you asked:

 

 

 

 

Collectivization in the Soviet Union - twice - was a Marxist ECONOMIC reform that led to the deaths of millions.  

 

I said what I wanted to say. That said, I work for a living and today ain’t an office day. You’re a dumbass, and I will never consider genocide an economic policy. Good day, sir. 

[3rdnlng]

45 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

 

You unbelievable dunce.  Here is what you asked:

 

 

 

 

Collectivization in the Soviet Union - twice - was a Marxist ECONOMIC reform that led to the deaths of millions.  

Uh, let's meet up at the home opener. BTW, I carry.

[DC Tom]

Just now, 3rdnlng said:

Uh, let's meet up at the home opener. BTW, I carry.

 

I'm guessing his reply to me was something along the lines of "Collectivization wasn't an economic reform, it was genocide!"

[3rdnlng]

5 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

I'm guessing his reply to me was something along the lines of "Collectivization wasn't an economic reform, it was genocide!"

You do know he has a degree, don't you?

[TakeYouToTasker]

8 minutes ago, The_Dude said:

 

I said what I wanted to say. That said, I work for a living and today ain’t an office day. You’re a dumbass, and I will never consider genocide an economic policy. Good day, sir. 

 

I have never seen someone so stubbornly insistent on being completely retarded.

 

Someone should write a paper on you.

 

Then, when another idiot like you emerges in 200 years, they could use it as a primary source when researching the history of !@#$wits.

 

 

[DC Tom]

2 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

You do know he has a degree, don't you?

 

How lucky are we, to see this board graced with not one but two Hamburger U grads in our lifetimes?

1 minute ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

I have never seen someone so stubbornly insistent on being completely retarded.

 

 

I only have 3 responses to that...

 

Well...3.5, really.

14 minutes ago, The_Dude said:

 

I said what I wanted to say. That said, I work for a living and today ain’t an office day. You’re a dumbass, and I will never consider genocide an economic policy. Good day, sir. 

 

You really just don't understand the difference between "led to" and "equals," do you?

 

Never mind the fact that genocide usually is an economic policy (see: the Heoroe, the Boers, the Holocaust, etc.)  Even when it isn't, that does not preclude "economic policy leading to mass starvation."  WHICH WAS ACTUALLY YOUR ORIGINAL QUESTION THAT I ANSWERED, YOU !@#$ING HALFWIT.  

 

We are not the problem here.  You're the problem here.  You keep changing the conversation you're having from post to post, and you're too stupid to even realize it.

[TakeYouToTasker]

26 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

I'm guessing his reply to me was something along the lines of "Collectivization wasn't an economic reform, it was genocide!"

 

I'm still baffled by his assertion that genocide is mutually exclusive from economic policy.

 

Someone should tell the Armenians.

 

 

Edited August 30, 2018 by TakeYouToTasker