DC Tom Posted August 30, 2018 Posted August 30, 2018 2 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said: I'm still baffled by his assertion that genocide is mutually exclusive from economic policy. Someone should tell the Armenians. The truly funny thing is this all started with him defending Marxism, and ends with him, by insisting that economics and genocide or absolutely mutually exclusive, completely denying Marxist dialectical materialism. And he's too stupid to even realize it.
TakeYouToTasker Posted August 30, 2018 Posted August 30, 2018 (edited) On 08/30/2018 at 11:34 AM, DC Tom said: The truly funny thing is this all started with him defending Marxism, and ends with him, by insisting that economics and genocide or absolutely mutually exclusive, completely denying Marxist dialectical materialism. And he's too stupid to even realize it. I especially liked him denying that the deaths under Mao's policies weren't driven by economics because he made the wrong decision. That analysis doesn't even rise to the lofty standard of "half-assed". Edited October 5, 2018 by TakeYouToTasker
DC Tom Posted August 30, 2018 Posted August 30, 2018 33 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said: I especially liked him denying that the deaths under Mao's policies were driven by economics because he made the wrong decision. That analysis doesn't even rise to the lofty standard of "half-assed". I would grant him some - Stalin had at least three purges motivated by power and paranoia, that had no economic basis (the purge of Trotskyites et al. on his rise to power, the Great Terror, and the Doctor's Plot). But the initial list I provided was of instances that were specifically famines, demonstrably cause by Marxist economic policies. Just as Chucklehead had initially asked for. I don't know how you don't argue that collectivization, dekulakization, and the confiscation and distribution of wealth is somehow not economic. Chucklehead has actually taken the "No true socialist" fallacy one step further, in to the realm of "no true economics."
TakeYouToTasker Posted August 30, 2018 Posted August 30, 2018 2 minutes ago, DC Tom said: I would grant him some - Stalin had at least three purges motivated by power and paranoia, that had no economic basis (the purge of Trotskyites et al. on his rise to power, the Great Terror, and the Doctor's Plot). But the initial list I provided was of instances that were specifically famines, demonstrably cause by Marxist economic policies. Just as Chucklehead had initially asked for. I don't know how you don't argue that collectivization, dekulakization, and the confiscation and distribution of wealth is somehow not economic. Chucklehead has actually taken the "No true socialist" fallacy one step further, in to the realm of "no true economics." Agreed, but I would make the argument that, as events unfolded, and Stalin was forced to make decisions which were both cold and rational, in pursuit of his policy goals, that those outcomes were indirectly tied to his economic policy. And even in areas where they might not be tied to economic policy, they were tied to the totalitarian and centralizing nature Stalinist Communism itself, and absolutely had economic impacts.
DC Tom Posted August 30, 2018 Posted August 30, 2018 Just now, TakeYouToTasker said: Agreed, but I would make the argument that, as events unfolded, and Stalin was forced to make decisions which were both cold and rational, in pursuit of his policy goals, that those outcomes were indirectly tied to his economic policy. And even in areas where they might not be tied to economic policy, they were tied to the totalitarian and centralizing nature Stalinist Communism itself, and absolutely had economic impacts. Perhaps. I might make an argument against that. But it's moot at the moment. Chucklehead asked for "Marxist ECONOMIC reforms" (emphasis his) that led to starvation. I gave him examples that very precisely and inarguably fit that request. Given he can't even handle those, examples a hand removed from reforms aren't even worth discussing in the current context.
TakeYouToTasker Posted August 30, 2018 Posted August 30, 2018 24 minutes ago, DC Tom said: Perhaps. I might make an argument against that. But it's moot at the moment. Chucklehead asked for "Marxist ECONOMIC reforms" (emphasis his) that led to starvation. I gave him examples that very precisely and inarguably fit that request. Given he can't even handle those, examples a hand removed from reforms aren't even worth discussing in the current context. Agreed 100%.
DC Tom Posted August 30, 2018 Posted August 30, 2018 18 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said: Agreed 100%. Too bad our thoughts on Marxist economic theory and mass starvation don't count, because our "book" learnin' doesn't include the sound of shrapnel pinging off the armor of our AAV or a DEGREE or the smell of willie pete burning its way through our flesh...
The_Dude Posted August 30, 2018 Posted August 30, 2018 2 hours ago, DC Tom said: How lucky are we, to see this board graced with not one but two Hamburger U grads in our lifetimes? I only have 3 responses to that... Well...3.5, really. 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. The holocaust was an economic policy? Idiot. You’re an idiot, and I’m soooooooo done. And yes I know, “too stupid to even realize it” and all. You and Twat Waffle Jr., keep telling me. I love it. Makes me laugh. I’m a really successful guy for somebody so stupid. Weird. And, to my face people don’t call me stupid. Weird. Its just so weird that I’m so successful but I can’t get two people who disagree with me on a message board to conclude I’m anything but an idiot. That’s so strange, isn’t it? Well, Tom, I will say it was idiotic of me spending soooo much time on that matter. I know I’m not wrong — and I know I don’t care what you think. I don’t care what the board thinks. Because despite the fact you think I’m retarded, I got nice house, I got people who call me “boss,” and I am rolling. But yeah, I’m an idiot because you and Twat Waffle insist so. Good thinkin.
DC Tom Posted August 30, 2018 Posted August 30, 2018 Don't you have a "book" you should be "reading," Chucklehead?
TakeYouToTasker Posted August 30, 2018 Posted August 30, 2018 16 minutes ago, The_Dude said: The holocaust was an economic policy? Idiot. You’re an idiot, and I’m soooooooo done. And yes I know, “too stupid to even realize it” and all. You and Twat Waffle Jr., keep telling me. I love it. Makes me laugh. I’m a really successful guy for somebody so stupid. Weird. And, to my face people don’t call me stupid. Weird. Its just so weird that I’m so successful but I can’t get two people who disagree with me on a message board to conclude I’m anything but an idiot. That’s so strange, isn’t it? Well, Tom, I will say it was idiotic of me spending soooo much time on that matter. I know I’m not wrong — and I know I don’t care what you think. I don’t care what the board thinks. Because despite the fact you think I’m retarded, I got nice house, I got people who call me “boss,” and I am rolling. But yeah, I’m an idiot because you and Twat Waffle insist so. Good thinkin. You're an idiot because you're an idiot, not because I say you're an idiot. I don't possess magical powers. I lack the ability to speak truth into existence. However, I can see how you might be confused and believe that I'm a mythical and magic creature, because you're too irretrievably stupid to understand how the world works. Oh! And while I have you here: 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!
DC Tom Posted August 30, 2018 Posted August 30, 2018 Go embarrass yourself in another thread, simpleton. This is Chucklehead's embarrassment here. 1
LSHMEAB Posted August 30, 2018 Posted August 30, 2018 TakeYouToTasker demonstrates a thorough, articulate(not sure if he's black) argument in favor of unfettered capitalism. I don't agree with a word of it, but it's "compelling." That being said, it's a losing proposition politically. That's precisely the reason conservative elected officials try to avoid it. They're not even touting the tax cuts because most people do not sense a direct benefit. Democrats are more than willing to slip on the banana...like every time. The Clinton campaign was the worst I've ever seen. I still don't know what she was FOR. People are selfish. They tend to vote selfishly. What's going to benefit ME? Vulture capitalism doesn't benefit the masses. Never has. Never will. If Dems stopped doing crazy sh*t like overreacting to politically incorrect social stances, this would be a completely different country.
3rdnlng Posted August 30, 2018 Posted August 30, 2018 6 minutes ago, LSHMEAB said: TakeYouToTasker demonstrates a thorough, articulate(not sure if he's black) argument in favor of unfettered capitalism. I don't agree with a word of it, but it's "compelling." That being said, it's a losing proposition politically. That's precisely the reason conservative elected officials try to avoid it. They're not even touting the tax cuts because most people do not sense a direct benefit. Democrats are more than willing to slip on the banana...like every time. The Clinton campaign was the worst I've ever seen. I still don't know what she was FOR. People are selfish. They tend to vote selfishly. What's going to benefit ME? Vulture capitalism doesn't benefit the masses. Never has. Never will. If Dems stopped doing crazy sh*t like overreacting to politically incorrect social stances, this would be a completely different country. I heard that he was a clean and articulate black person. Per Uncle Joe: "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy," That's our TYTT. 1
Koko78 Posted August 30, 2018 Posted August 30, 2018 8 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: I heard that he was a clean and articulate black person. Per Uncle Joe: "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy," That's our TYTT. Don't monkey it up with Uncle Joe quotes. Too soon? 1
LSHMEAB Posted August 30, 2018 Posted August 30, 2018 Just now, 3rdnlng said: I heard that he was a clean and articulate black person. Per Uncle Joe: "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy," That's our TYTT. I don't know about any of that monkey business, but I know I could never vote for a grown man ADVERTISING fellatio on another grown man. Did you see that disgusting Disantos ad? Lets hope Florida rejects those shenanigans.
3rdnlng Posted August 30, 2018 Posted August 30, 2018 5 minutes ago, LSHMEAB said: I don't know about any of that monkey business, but I know I could never vote for a grown man ADVERTISING fellatio on another grown man. Did you see that disgusting Disantos ad? Lets hope Florida rejects those shenanigans. It would appear that maybe you have been watching too much gay porn.
BringBackOrton Posted August 30, 2018 Posted August 30, 2018 25 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: It would appear that maybe you have been watching too much gay porn. Too much or not enough?
LSHMEAB Posted August 30, 2018 Posted August 30, 2018 27 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: It would appear that maybe you have been watching too much gay porn. Meh. Not every shot hits the mark.
3rdnlng Posted August 30, 2018 Posted August 30, 2018 Just now, BringBackOrton said: Too much or not enough? Beats me. Different strokes for different folks, I guess.
Recommended Posts