But people shouldn't be able to get together and take cases to court.
Fuck Israel
Keep tilting, Don.Dilbert_X wrote:
But people shouldn't be able to get together and take cases to court.
You're a moron.Jay wrote:
Keep tilting, Don.Dilbert_X wrote:
But people shouldn't be able to get together and take cases to court.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/11/politics … index.htmlAmerica's top general is apologizing for appearing in a photo-op with President Donald Trump after the forceful dispersal of protesters outside the White House last week, saying the move was a "mistake."
Gen. Mark Milley, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff also said that he was "outraged" by the killing of George Floyd and added that the protests it sparked spoke to "centuries of injustice toward African Americans."
"As senior leaders, everything you do will be closely watched. And I am not immune. As many of you saw, the result of the photograph of me at Lafayette Square last week. That sparked a national debate about the role of the military in civil society," Milley, said in a pre-recorded speech to a group of graduates from the National Defense University released on Thursday.
"I should not have been there. My presence in that moment and in that environment created a perception of the military involved in domestic politics. As a commissioned uniformed officer, it was a mistake that I have learned from, and I sincerely hope we all can learn from it," he added.
Last edited by uziq (2020-06-13 09:47:10)
Name a place where that doesn't hold true.uziq wrote:
https://t.co/9qBXfAEmht
to succeed in america it is better to be born wealthy than smart.
all of scandinavia, for a start. they have extremely high social mobility (and high progressive taxes).Jay wrote:
Name a place where that doesn't hold true.uziq wrote:
https://t.co/9qBXfAEmht
to succeed in america it is better to be born wealthy than smart.
Last edited by uziq (2020-06-13 10:58:54)
So you are saying there would be no advantage to being born into a wealthy old money family if one were born in Scandinavia? Same end result as one of their poor Somali immigrants?uziq wrote:
all of scandinavia, for a start. they have extremely high social mobility (and high progressive taxes).Jay wrote:
Name a place where that doesn't hold true.uziq wrote:
https://t.co/9qBXfAEmht
to succeed in america it is better to be born wealthy than smart.
many countries have high taxes on inheritance and estate taxes.
it's damning for america, jay, because you're meant to be 'the land of the free' and 'the american dream', not 'land of the gentry' and 'the american drudgery'. figure it out.
Last edited by uziq (2020-06-13 14:33:27)
Probably because they're not socialist.uziq wrote:
‘old money’ doesn’t exist in the same way, for a start.
and secondly, that’s not the point. an immigrant or person at the bottom in scandinavia has a much better chance of climbing the ladder than pretty much anywhere else.
thirdly, none of the countries which beat america handily glorify themselves as the ‘land of the free’ or of the myth of ‘the self-made man’ or success story. weird how the socialist republics of europe are more meritocratic than freedom-loving, individualistic america eh?
Last edited by uziq (2020-06-13 16:01:14)
No, they freed up their economies after the stagflation of the 1970s. They're less regulated and there's less state interference in their companies than there is in the US. They're actually models of near perfect deregulation.uziq wrote:
lmao. americans use that word very selectively.
so obama is a 'socialist' but the social democratic scandinavian states, i.e. the fucking ideal models that democrats like obama motion at, aren't socialist.
i'll leave you to figure that one out. they are undoubtedly more highly taxed, less 'free', more state-owned and centralised than the united states, in any case.
anyway. lwitter seems obsessed with accusing trump of having early onset dementia or a secret stroke or something. apparently he can't drink using one hand. and he stands funny. intriguing hypothesis folks.
Which countries aren't socialist?Jay wrote:
Probably because they're not socialist.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2020-06-13 17:59:55)
In the 80's before the breakup of Ma Bell, there was a long running argument that a well regulated monopoly was better than a telecommunication free market free for all.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
I don't think you'll find a "leftist" that agrees with regulatory capture.
Regulatory capture is inevitable. The stakes are just too high.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
I don't think you'll find a "leftist" that agrees with regulatory capture. The point is that those social-democratic governments provide far more civic resources and yes, tax at a higher rate to support those social programs. If you're going to highlight their economic policy as an indicator of their success, you have to also acknowledge their civic and cultural attitudes in regards to creating equal opportunities. Thats the whole point in highlighting the social mobility. There is less stratification.
What makes scandinavia socialist? Aside from Norway's Statoil, what industries are nationalized?Dilbert_X wrote:
Which countries aren't socialist?Jay wrote:
Probably because they're not socialist.
Are we really going to have to explain the difference between communism and social democracy to you again?
Please educate yourself, this is tedious.
I'd suggest you do visit these places but then you'll just come back with "hurr durr they weren't all wearing overalls and clutching a book so clearly they aren't socialist"