This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Dave
1
« on: September 01, 2014, 07:14:10 PM »
Holy shit.
Dave might be the first SJW that only teeters on autism instead of being right down there with Jeremy fucking Bentham. He almost fooled me.
I'm not the one who actually thinks the wheel didn't exist in Africa before the 1800s. Go fuck yourself, you teenage brat.
2
« on: September 01, 2014, 07:13:10 PM »
They're called states.
Also you're Canadian I don't think you can properly comment on the workings of the Native American benefit programs in the US.
Sorry, Please educate me on how privileged natives are compared to the poor white people in whatever flat POS state you live in.
3
« on: September 01, 2014, 07:11:46 PM »
The wheel had not been invented in parts of Africa by the end of the 1800s stopped reading there you're a retard, lol
4
« on: September 01, 2014, 07:08:17 PM »
I think Trudeau had the right idea with the national energy program, you faggots deserve to live in poverty.
Please educate me on how privileged natives are compared to the poor white people in whatever flat POS province you live in.
5
« on: September 01, 2014, 07:02:50 PM »
sorry, I meant to say oil but typed wheat by accident.
another inbred westerner whining about how how the system is biased in favour of natives, I've heard it all before.
6
« on: September 01, 2014, 06:59:26 PM »
oh dear, i placed so much value on your opinion, how will i ever recover from this devastating loss of credibility  don't you have wheat to farm, you fucking ignorant hick?
7
« on: September 01, 2014, 06:56:18 PM »
black people should be thankful for slavery
I've seen black people get everything for free
8
« on: September 01, 2014, 06:51:15 PM »
Don't get me started. Native Americans get almost anything for free.
can I report mods for racism?
9
« on: September 01, 2014, 06:49:20 PM »
So your arguing that the system which made first-world countries rich shouldn't be used to make third-world countries rich? Fucking bravo.
Imperialism made the first world rich, not capitalism. Capitalism was the means by which the manufacturing class seized control of the wealth away from the aristocracy. You think the disparity might have something to do with historical imperialism, contemporary protectionism, unstable kleptocratic governments and poor policy? Contemporary protectionism is all but non-existent. Most third-world governments are in the pockets of western corporations. It's hardly marginal either, you really should look at how countries like China, Russia, Hong Kong, Singapore, Estonia and the Nordics have developed thanks to it throughout history. The Nordics and Russia also benefited from Imperialism. As to the rest, you need only look at how the poor are treated to see how much capitalism has done for them.
10
« on: September 01, 2014, 06:30:07 PM »
Yeah, I guess the global poverty rate just halved itself over the past 20 years.
You can prattle on about a marginal increase in wealth all you like, it doesn't change the fact that there is a noticeable disparity in how workers in the third world live compared to those in the first.
11
« on: September 01, 2014, 06:16:26 PM »
Not true. Obama has been trying to pass a bunch if stuff, he just gets stalled every time.
That's the apathy I'm talking about. I mean, why not let the left take full control for a while and see what happens? What exactly do we have going for us right now that we're so scared to lose?
He's still stomping on civil liberties, blowing up Pakistani children with drones and giving money to Israel. Plus, there's that whole third world exploitation issue to consider, which will continue as long as capitalism still exists. Vote for the guy all you want, just don't expect any sort of substantial change aside from subsidized health care.
12
« on: September 01, 2014, 05:59:15 PM »
Nobody advocates trickle down economics here. Not even Kinder, but I might be wrong and he may just Surprise us all.
LOL Why are you being so condescending? It's broken mostly due to apathetic youngsters. If people would vote Democrat in the mid terms and get a Democratic president in you'd see serious progress. Had you guys down that for Obama's terms things would be better. The way things stand now he's getting president blocked everywhere he goes.
I'm not an American citizen, so voting Democrat isn't on the table for me. Any progress you see after voting democrat will be nominal at best. No matter which party you vote for in America, you're voting for big business.
13
« on: September 01, 2014, 05:52:35 PM »
Supply-side economics and trickle-down are the same thing, despite how loudly you want to deny it.
14
« on: September 01, 2014, 05:51:35 PM »
I didn't try to "justify" sweat shops. I said employment was preferable to unemployment. There's a reason such jobs are high in demand, and when somebody as far Left of me as Paul Krugman agrees you need to re-evaluate, mate. I'm not the one who wants to throw the poor back to subsistence living.
Because those are the only two options, right? Treating people like slaves vs leaving them unemployed? Couldn't pay them a decent wage or anything, that'd be central planning~ and therefore evil, or something. (Nevermind the fact that most third world countries are dependant on first world corperations because of western imperialism fucking them over for generations, but whatever).
15
« on: September 01, 2014, 05:47:40 PM »
What do you mean by neoliberal economics?
I don't know why you guys get into all this jargon and argue semantics. This is all very simple. Money needs to circulate. It needs to be spent on programs to decrease poverty, programs to decrease violence, programs to help small family businesses. Large investments need to be made into various fields of science, hydroponic food, and renewable energy.
If it wasn't for our money being stolen by people who are practically royalty instead of elected officials, these things wouldn't be happening. What should we do? I'm not sure. But it's pretty damn clear this system is not working out. The corrupt run the world and are destroying our future while we kill each other over the crumbs that fall of their table.
I'm not even sure where you guys are trying to go with this, but I can assure you we're all on the same side and we shouldn't be arguing like this.
Neoliberal is a not-so-nice word for trickle-down economics, AKA the opposite of all the things you're advocating in this post. I have to say, you're on the right track to realizing how broken our western political system is.
16
« on: September 01, 2014, 05:44:27 PM »
I'm serious, though.
If you're going to criticise my politics, at least do it correctly. Do yourself the dignity of being informed. If not, then fuck, have a nice day and see you l8er allig8er.
Only one of us has tried to justify sweat shops, I think that's a good enough indicator of how informed we both are. Au revoir.
17
« on: September 01, 2014, 05:42:15 PM »
I haven't enough background knowledge or understanding of Scotland to see whether a Yes or No vote is good, but his reasoning for his choice seems pretty retarded to be fair.
Most Scots want to back out because they're pissed off about how New Labour & the Tories have been running things. OP is just cherry-picking from his retarded facebook friends. Say what you will about whether or not this is a good idea, but you can't help but sympathize with the Yes vote.
18
« on: September 01, 2014, 05:39:35 PM »
Dear boy, flattery will get you nowhere.
19
« on: September 01, 2014, 05:36:18 PM »
tried to pin-point what economic policies I support which help the poor, Easy, there are none. What do I win?
20
« on: September 01, 2014, 05:31:43 PM »
Yes, because you live in a fantasy world where neoliberal economics somehow benefit the poor. We've already had this discussion.
21
« on: September 01, 2014, 05:25:51 PM »
22
« on: September 01, 2014, 05:22:48 PM »
Unless they're poor, huh? Go fuck yourself. Already taken care of, baby 
23
« on: September 01, 2014, 05:21:21 PM »
Israel determined the land was not cultivated with enough intensity for the Palestinians to maintain their ownership rights. 
24
« on: September 01, 2014, 05:17:43 PM »
2muchjargon4me
What are you guys talking about?
He thinks Chomsky is arrogant and is mad about the same attribute being applied to himself.
25
« on: September 01, 2014, 05:16:20 PM »
Slightly less fancy, but more still more words than are strictly necessary.
You're a mediocre writer, but you have the makings of a great politician. B+
26
« on: September 01, 2014, 05:11:47 PM »
That sounds an awful lot like a fancy way of saying they're stupid.
27
« on: September 01, 2014, 05:07:22 PM »
Yeah, Chomsky thinks people are stupid because they're being lied to, you think they're stupid because they're poor.
I was kidding, but if you think that makes you come out looking better then sure thing.
28
« on: September 01, 2014, 04:54:35 PM »
Not all the way through, what does that have to do with anything?
29
« on: September 01, 2014, 04:50:34 PM »
lrn2red fagg0t
Don't sell yourself short, sounds like you'd be great at it.
30
« on: September 01, 2014, 04:49:10 PM »
You are really fucking stupid if you think that's contradictory in any way.
I'll take "doublethink" for 500, George. 
|
Show Posts