What candidate do you side the most with quiz

[DirtySanchez]

Originally Posted by moron

Given the circumstances of the times like 9/11 and having to fight 2 wars Bush was a great president. Yes he made some mistakes but overall he lead our country and was willing to make the tough decisions because they were the right ones. Yes he created a deficit but it was a manageable one until Obama came along and tripled it.

[jheit8]

This message is hidden because DirtySanchez is on your ignore list.

[DirtySanchez]

Originally Posted by jheit8

This message is hidden because DirtySanchez is on your ignore list.

You've already proven in a previous thread that you read all ignored posts. Cry harder bitch.

[Yurpen]

Barack Obama

[water bottle]

Originally Posted by jheit8

An independent West Coast would be fine if we leave out southern California.

Include coastal BC and I'm in

[TheRascalKing]

I'd move to an independent West Coast. Turn Southern California loose though, let the Crips and Bloods and Sureños kill each other off of stupid shit without ruining our vibe. We might be able to run the Northwest Front hillbilly types like Dread Lord out of Montana and Idaho and get some prime land.

[Malice]

Originally Posted by jheit8

An independent West Coast would be fine if we leave out southern California.

Oh please, what about all the other bankrupt areas?

[jheit8]

Originally Posted by Malice

Oh please, what about all the other bankrupt areas?

What?

[TheRascalKing]

Malice is getting more and more incoherent and delusional with each passing day.

[Malice]

Originally Posted by jheit8

What?

SoCal isn't the only bad part of the apple.

[jheit8]

Originally Posted by Malice

SoCal isn't the only bad part of the apple.

If we're an independent country we wouldn't have to care about debts and corporate exploitation. southern California is a rotten place that would work against a popular revolution.

[Malice]

Wouldn't have to care about debts? So what are you going to do, default on everything and never be able to borrow again except at very high rates? Are you going to have balanced budgets every year after the default so you won't need to borrow money?

[crazzyass]

Originally Posted by Malice

Wouldn't have to care about debts? So what are you going to do, default on everything and never be able to borrow again except at very high rates? Are you going to have balanced budgets every year after the default so you won't need to borrow money?

I think he's suggesting a full revolt and an ensuing structure that doesn't require reliance on outside help/financing.

[jheit8]

Originally Posted by Malice

Wouldn't have to care about debts? So what are you going to do, default on everything and never be able to borrow again except at very high rates? Are you going to have balanced budgets every year after the default so you won't need to borrow money?

Why give foreign groups such as the World Bank and the IMF control over your economy?

[Malice]

Because people want stuff, they don't want to pay for it, and they'll deny things are unsustainable until it's undeniable, and even then they'll deny it and rally against "austerity", which never really happens.

[Malice]

Oh, and another thing, if the country split into pieces wouldn't corporations/the rich just move to the most favorable areas? Wouldn't that drain you of your tax base, jheit? Or would you force them to work or close the borders and make moving capital or money out illegal?

[jheit8]

Originally Posted by Malice

Oh, and another thing, if the country split into pieces wouldn't corporations/the rich just move to the most favorable areas? Wouldn't that drain you of your tax base, jheit? Or would you force them to work or close the borders and make moving capital or money out illegal?

Saboteurs would be punished
There wouldn't be taxes on domestic gains anyways, since people would be all working for the government and wages would be based on how "valuable" the work is.

[Malice]

Dear god, I can only imagine how badly that would turn out...

You've never even touched a book on economics, have you? And I don't mean something like "Das Kapital" or "Why Capitalism Sucks and You're A Genius for Being Left-Wing".

[Yggdrasil]

Originally Posted by jheit8

Saboteurs would be punished
There wouldn't be taxes on domestic gains anyways, since people would be all working for the government and wages would be based on how "valuable" the work is.

No gracias, anarcho-whatever please Otherwise, I like where this is going

[Malice]

Originally Posted by Yggdrasil

No gracias, anarcho-whatever please Otherwise, I like where this is going

anarcho-capitalism?

Dear god, have all my mises links converted you?

[TheRascalKing]

Originally Posted by Yggdrasil

No gracias, anarcho-whatever please Otherwise, I like where this is going

Commandantes - Bandiera Rossa - YouTube

Commandantes - Bandiera Rossa - YouTube
Video: click to display

[Yggdrasil]

Originally Posted by Malice

anarcho-capitalism?

Those two concepts are pretty mutually exclusive, brah. If the monopolies don't get you, al-Shabaab will

[jheit8]

Originally Posted by Yggdrasil

No gracias, anarcho-whatever please Otherwise, I like where this is going

True anarcho-communism can't be sustained by people today. The consumerist propaganda machine has had them under control for a century, they'd have to be re-educated.

[Malice]

Originally Posted by Yggdrasil

Those two concepts are pretty mutually exclusive, brah. If the monopolies don't get you, al-Shabaab will

Myth!



New left historian, BTW. He uses the word "conservatism" in a different sense.

The standard economic history is absolute junk. They've always used the power of government, regulation, for their own benefit and this idea that Republicans support free markets is a joke.

I have this book in physical form. Allow me to type out what's written on the back:

The triumph of conservatism is one of the most influential and important books of modern American history. This bold reinterpretation of the Progressive Era develops a startling thesis: that the dominant tendency in business after the turn of the century was toward competition and economic decentralization, not toward concentration and monopoly; and that, unable to halt this trend by their own means, the leaders of big business-and not the political reformers-became the chief initiators of the era's "progressive" regulatory laws. Thus, "progressivism" was a profoundly conservative effort to maintain existing political and social relations in a new economic context.


I urge everyone who considers themselves left wing to read the following article so they can gain an understanding of the true political dynamics in the world today:


http://www.counterpunch.org/2010/04/...undamentalism/

[water bottle]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascadi...dence_movement)

Vive le Cascadie libre

[TheRascalKing]

Originally Posted by Malice

Myth!



New left historian, BTW. He uses the word "conservatism" in a different sense.

The standard economic history is absolute junk. They've always used the power of government, regulation, for their own benefit and this idea that Republicans support free markets is a joke.

I have this book in physical form. Allow me to type out what's written on the back:

The triumph of conservatism is one of the most influential and important books of modern American history. This bold reinterpretation of the Progressive Era develops a startling thesis: that the dominant tendency in business after the turn of the century was toward competition and economic decentralization, not toward concentration and monopoly; and that, unable to halt this trend by their own means, the leaders of big business-and not the political reformers-became the chief initiators of the era's "progressive" regulatory laws. Thus, "progressivism" was a profoundly conservative effort to maintain existing political and social relations in a new economic context.


I urge everyone who considers themselves left wing to read the following article so they can gain an understanding of the true political dynamics in the world today:


http://www.counterpunch.org/2010/04/...undamentalism/

I swear you made this exact same post a couple weeks ago.