Would this be a superior economic system to the US?

[tpfkaw]

So I suppose you're a Thatcherite on the coal mine issue?

The coal mine issue? What was 'the coal mine issue', exactly?

Well since you appear to believe that the taxation and spending policies of the Soviet Union were sound, I presume you either believe that central planning and/or state-owned enterprises were "the features that guaranteed eventual disaster," so presumably you either believe that coal mining should not be centrally planned or that it should be privatized.

[courts]

It's the Soviet Union, people.

Congratulations, Mint gets a prize!

(Well not really, because I told him).

I would have figured it out anyway, you sort of pick up on those things after doing exhaustive papers on "contemporary" Russia...

[Filuwaúrdjan]

So I suppose you're a Thatcherite on the coal mine issue?

The coal mine issue? What was 'the coal mine issue', exactly?

Well since you appear to believe that the taxation and spending policies of the Soviet Union were sound, I presume you either believe that central planning and/or state-owned enterprises were "the features that guaranteed eventual disaster," so presumably you either believe that coal mining should not be centrally planned or that it should be privatized.

Are you an irredeemable idiot for real or are you just pretending to be one for the purposes of trolling?

[tpfkaw]

So I suppose you're a Thatcherite on the coal mine issue?

The coal mine issue? What was 'the coal mine issue', exactly?

Well since you appear to believe that the taxation and spending policies of the Soviet Union were sound, I presume you either believe that central planning and/or state-owned enterprises were "the features that guaranteed eventual disaster," so presumably you either believe that coal mining should not be centrally planned or that it should be privatized.

Are you an irredeemable idiot for real or are you just pretending to be one for the purposes of trolling?

I dunno Al.  Enlighten me as to my error with your brilliance.

[TJ in Oregon]

Are people voting yes to this as a joke? Or is this forum really that leftwing?

Geez.... an 81% income tax on people making over $20k?! Man, I'd quit school tomorrow since there would be no point.

[Badger]

Are people voting yes to this as a joke? Or is this forum really that leftwing?

Geez.... an 81% income tax on people making over $20k?! Man, I'd quit school tomorrow since there would be no point.

Mostly to annoy Worny, I suspect.

Because remember kids, either Russian-style massive state planning or a billionaire & conglomerate "libertarian" paradise. There is NO in between. So sny time you support even modest business-friendly efforts to expand health insurance coverage or reign in the worst excesses of Wall Street speculation, you are supporting centrally-planned economic statism!

[tpfkaw]

Mostly to annoy Worny, I suspect.

They're failing, I find it hysterical.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ah yes, "business-friendly," aka corporatism, aka why health insurance companies and banks spent billions lobbying for said legislation.  Big business adores regulation because it increases the barriers to entry in their industries and thus reduces their competition.  The only thing they like more would be something like forcing everyone to purchase their product.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Uh yeah, by definition, but then I suspect a genius lawyer would already know that.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I dunno Al.  Enlighten me as to my error with your brilliance.

I think you've got this the wrong round. I'm not claiming to be brilliant and, actually, don't really go in for that type of thing. Not good for the liver. But thanks for answering my question.

[tpfkaw]

I dunno Al.  Enlighten me as to my error with your brilliance.

I think you've got this the wrong round. I'm not claiming to be brilliant and, actually, don't really go in for that type of thing. Not good for the liver. But thanks for answering my question.

Happily.  I have to feel sympathy for someone whose health depends on not backing up any assertion with evidence or explanation.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Happily.  I have to feel sympathy for someone whose health depends on not backing up any assertion with evidence or explanation.

Slightly too pointed, dear. And therefore needlessly unpleasant.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

WTH?

No!

[tpfkaw]

Happily.  I have to feel sympathy for someone whose health depends on not backing up any assertion with evidence or explanation.

Slightly too pointed, dear. And therefore needlessly unpleasant.

Are you an irredeemable idiot for real or are you just pretending to be one for the purposes of trolling?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Happily.  I have to feel sympathy for someone whose health depends on not backing up any assertion with evidence or explanation.

Slightly too pointed, dear. And therefore needlessly unpleasant.

Are you an irredeemable idiot for real or are you just pretending to be one for the purposes of trolling?

You might consider the advantages of using your own material. It might seem of poor quality now (and, in fairness, that would be because it is), but the only way to improve it is to work on it. Not that there's anything wrong in re-working material thought up by others, but you should consider adding your own stamp to it, or to use it in a way that makes it nodding status clear. Failing that, appropriate use is always a positive.

[tpfkaw]

Happily.  I have to feel sympathy for someone whose health depends on not backing up any assertion with evidence or explanation.

Slightly too pointed, dear. And therefore needlessly unpleasant.

Are you an irredeemable idiot for real or are you just pretending to be one for the purposes of trolling?

You might consider the advantages of using your own material. It might seem of poor quality now (and, in fairness, that would be because it is), but the only way to improve it is to work on it. Not that there's anything wrong in re-working material thought up by others, but you should consider adding your own stamp to it, or to use it in a way that makes it nodding status clear. Failing that, appropriate use is always a positive.

Well actually, your material is as predictable as it is mundane (1. either "You are a fycking idiot" or "You are trolling, idiot", 2. "Stop that name-calling, muffin!", 3. repeat 1 and 2 as necessary), but occasionally you unintentionally produce something that might prove an ironically appropriate addition to a more diverse repartee.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Well actually, your material is as predictable as it is mundane (1. either "You are a fycking idiot" or "You are trolling, idiot", 2. "Stop that name-calling, muffin!", 3. repeat 1 and 2 as necessary), but occasionally you unintentionally produce something that might prove an ironically appropriate addition to a more diverse repartee.

I don't think I've ever called anyone a 'muffin'. It seems like an odd sort of word to use as an insult. Is it common, in your part of the world, to use the names of baked goods as insults?

As for predictability, I confess, alas, yes. Not really in the way that you seem to think... but then as you are clearly a poor judge of character, I concede that you may be a poor judge of other things as well. They do tend to go together. Anyway... I confess that my material seems mostly to consist of dense paragraphs of alarmingly petty and bitter sarcasm, combined with disguised personal abuse, atrocious irony, and a tendency to use worryingly specific violent figurative language. The hideous suspicion must also exist that I actually find writing such material enjoyable, which would rather ruin the point of any baiting. The thing is though, as a great man once said (and repeatedly), I am not a member of the Liberal Democrats (thank the Lord), but I do believing in recycling old material. For instance, I find your humour (which is nasty in a way that mine isn't; the natural response seems to be the sort of unpleasant sn than comes from self-satisfied - but unselfaware - entitlement) slightly less amusing than sepsis. I have used that line before, and will do again because it perfectly captures a certain specific type of contempt. And because I firmly believe that you are also the by-product of a severe bacterial infection and that you must be flushed out by intravenous fluids and antibiotics.

[tpfkaw]

23 minutes for that?  I must say, you have a halfway respectable serve but choke against an opponent who predicts it.  Not going to win the table tennis championship, are we?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

23 minutes for that?  I must say, you have a halfway respectable serve but choke against an opponent who predicts it.  Not going to win the table tennis championship, are we?

I don't play table tennis. And, you know, I tend to do other things while posting here. Usually they're more productive, but it's nice to alternate.

[tpfkaw]

Alright, I'll agree to save you from further embarassment.  I'm not the type to kick a dog while it's down.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Alright, I'll agree to save you from further embarassment.  I'm not the type to kick a dog while it's down.

That's very noble of you, but I have to decline the offer.

(Four minutes, by the way. And seven for the previous post. Or near enough. And for only a handful of sentences, tut, tut).

[© tweed]

I can keep my eyes focused on this square of light on the floor.  I can't keep my mind off the framed picture on the wall.

[tpfkaw]

Alright, I'll agree to save you from further embarassment.  I'm not the type to kick a dog while it's down.

That's very noble of you, but I have to decline the offer.

(Four minutes, by the way. And seven for the previous post. Or near enough. And for only a handful of sentences, tut, tut).

Actually, I was counting the amount of time you spent composing your written equivalent of stammering, not the amount of time between my post and yours.  That would be 27 minutes.  Of course, one of the many inefficiencies of the Soviet system was its emphasis on quantity over quality.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Actually, I was counting the amount of time you spent composing your written equivalent of stammering, not the amount of time between my post and yours.  That would be 27 minutes.

You mean you actually checked? Haha! That's both worryingly obsessive and utterly pathetic.

But I'm sure you'll think up some spiteful wisecrack to make it seem otherwise. To you, if to no one else. Probably you don't even see why others might find it weird...

[tpfkaw]

Actually, I was counting the amount of time you spent composing your written equivalent of stammering, not the amount of time between my post and yours.  That would be 27 minutes.

You mean you actually checked? Haha! That's both worryingly obsessive and utterly pathetic.

But I'm sure you'll think up some spiteful wisecrack to make it seem otherwise. To you, if to no one else. Probably you don't even see why others might find it weird...

Is it bad that I can now predict exactly what you are going to say before you even say it?

Here's my notes:

• I've won the argument, will snidely offer to stop
• Al doesn't know when to stop, will say how many minutes that post took
• Al does say how many minutes that post took
• *insert appropriately snide response here*
• My response: “Actually, I was counting the amount of time you spent composing your written equivalent of stammering, not the amount of time between my post and yours.  That would be 27 minutes.  Of course, one of the many inefficiencies of the Soviet system was its emphasis on quantity over quality.”
• Al will say that I'm too obsessed because I checked when he started his post
• I could either point out that I was checking what Mint was doing (), point out I'm not the one obsessed enough to spend two years of his life on Atlas (though admittedly it's a time-waster I'm much too fond of), or simply ignore his increasingly childish and stupid responses
• Al does say I'm too obsessed
• I know, I'll post this!
• Al posts how many minutes this post took, or one of his generic muffin posts.  whatev

[Badger]

Mostly to annoy Wormy, I suspect.

They're failing, I find it hysterical.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ah yes, "business-friendly," aka corporatism, aka why health insurance companies and banks spent billions lobbying for said legislation.  Big business adores regulation because it increases the barriers to entry in their industries and thus reduces their competition.  The only thing they like more would be something like forcing everyone to purchase their product.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Uh yeah, by definition, but then I suspect a genius lawyer would already know that.

Yes, health insurance companies spent vast amounts of many lobbying for the public option, and other parts of health care reform to aggressively expand insurance coverage, not to kill or neuter the bill however possible. Of course! Just like Wall Street spent all those lobbying dollars in support of the financial reform bill! It ALL makes perfect sense.

How is life on Htrae these days?

Somedays, Wormy, you prove my points better than I can.

[opebo]

I don't think I've ever called anyone a 'muffin'. It seems like an odd sort of word to use as an insult. Is it common, in your part of the world, to use the names of baked goods as insults?

its a reference to your old fruit act, dearie.