Off With Their Heads!!!!!....

[Rabbi Dali Rick]

Wow, Prince Charles and Camilla almost got the Marie Antoinette treatment, as they drove to the theater. Students, whip into a frenzy by the tripling of school tuition, almost got to behead their standing royality, can this happen here?



the rebbi

[ygmir]

*537 heads would roll*

if, my count is correct.

[Eric]

almost got to behead their standing royality, can this happen here?

Let's see- no standing royalty in the US.... nope. Can't hack off the heads of what you don't got.

[Fire_Moose]

What about Rockafellers, Bushs, or van Salees?

[Dr. Pyro]

Or the Obamas Bidens and Browns.

[theCryptofishist]

Maybe there are a couple of deposed dictators that didn't go to the South of France who can serve in this national emergency.

[Elderberry]

Or the Obamas Bidens and Browns.

Or the Boehners, McConnells and Cantors.

JK

[TomServo]

Ive always said we should bring back the Guillotine...

[theCryptofishist]

And I've always said that we should bring back 3" lotuses, but no one listens to me.

[Thecatman]

Ive always said we should bring back the Guillotine...

or at least the stocks

[TomServo]

And I've always said that we should bring back 3" lotuses, but no one listens to me.

the car or the flower?

[geekster]

Bunch of spoiled brats that have yet to learn the meaning of "we pissed all the money away, there isn't any more". Let them protest. They will learn at some point that the cupboard is dry. They want all these "programs" but have absolutely no sense of the concept of actually paying for them. Now maybe they will get a clue.


And maybe they can remember Thatcher's words:

"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."

[JStep]

And maybe they can remember Thatcher's words:

"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."

Not that I ever had much esteem for Maggie Thatcher, but that makes literally no sense.

[ygmir]

And maybe they can remember Thatcher's words:

"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."

Not that I ever had much esteem for Maggie Thatcher, but that makes literally no sense.

really, that makes no sense to you?
hhhmmm.........

[TomServo]

And maybe they can remember Thatcher's words:

"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."

Not that I ever had much esteem for Maggie Thatcher, but that makes literally no sense.

really, that makes no sense to you?
hhhmmm.........

No, it doesnt. Someones always taking our money. Im paying for two wars I totally disagree with. The "Socialist" name calling is political bullshit. I call Republicans Nazis (who were also socialists) all the time, but not seriously...I know the difference. sorry for the mini rant

[ygmir]

Not that I ever had much esteem for Maggie Thatcher, but that makes literally no sense.

really, that makes no sense to you?
hhhmmm.........

No, it doesnt. Someones always taking our money. Im paying for two wars I totally disagree with. The "Socialist" name calling is political bullshit. I call Republicans Nazis (who were also socialists) all the time, but not seriously...I know the difference. sorry for the mini rant

\
yeah, but, in the context she used it, it seems obvious what she meant.

[TomServo]

really, that makes no sense to you?
hhhmmm.........

No, it doesnt. Someones always taking our money. Im paying for two wars I totally disagree with. The "Socialist" name calling is political bullshit. I call Republicans Nazis (who were also socialists) all the time, but not seriously...I know the difference. sorry for the mini rant

\
yeah, but, in the context she used it, it seems obvious what she meant.

what she meant and what she did, are two different stories. Unemployment was rampant under Maggie.

[TomServo]

[ygmir]

No, it doesnt. Someones always taking our money. Im paying for two wars I totally disagree with. The "Socialist" name calling is political bullshit. I call Republicans Nazis (who were also socialists) all the time, but not seriously...I know the difference. sorry for the mini rant

\
yeah, but, in the context she used it, it seems obvious what she meant.

what she meant and what she did, are two different stories. Unemployment was rampant under Maggie.

yeah, maybe so.
I was just pointing out, that, the meaning of what she said seemed obvious. Not, the accuracy or implications.

[geekster]

Socialists want to externalize the costs of things to the individual. They want to give you something that really costs $10,000 for only $5,000 of your money and get someone else to pay the other $5,000. At some point they run out of someone else's money and the person actually has to pay the $10,000 that the thing costs. Of course, now they are furious and must "demonstrate" (but this is not really demonstrating, it is an infantile act along the lines of 'I will make your life hell until you give me what I want' which is the same reasoning a child uses when throwing a tantrum).

So it is basically a tantrum. Their demands can not be given into because there simply is no money. It is gone. It doesn't exist. Extracting more money from "someone else" in order to pay for it simply kills the goose the lays the golden egg.

What we are seeing here is a group of people who believe they are entitled to someone else's earnings. They refuse to take personal responsibility for what their desires cost them. They demand someone else pay for it. But the other people have run out of money.

[TomServo]

national socialists or social libertarians?

[geekster]

National socialist, social democrats, etc.

The point is that they want to argue about how they can justify not having themselves pay the actual cost of what they want and force someone else to subsidize what they want. On the other hand, another person who is not using that service or needing that resource is expected to pay for it. That is simply not sustainable. It doesn't work, never has worked, and has failed every single time it has been tried because it removes all market incentives for efficiency.

For example: If you get something that really costs $5,000 for free, are you going to be all that diligent in making sure you got everything you were supposed to? Are you going to really push the provider to give you whatever it is at the lowest possible cost? Does the provider of that service get any incentive to find better ways of doing it if the end user is not really footing the bill for it?

If the end user is footing the bill, maybe they go over that bill a little more closely. Maybe instead of taking that hospital tylenol at $5 a pill, they bring their own from home. Maybe instead of pauing $15 for that gauze, they get a friend to run over to the pharmacy and pick some up for $2. In other words, when people pay the *actual* costs of the services they consume, they find ways of reducing those costs. Providers are given market incentives to increase efficiency and reduce the costs of delivering the service. When the costs are borne by someone who has no connection whatsoever with the service, there is no such incentive. In fact, the provider can continue jacking up prices because the end user never pays the actual cost and those subsidizing the cost never see the bill.

Making other people pay for your services never works.

[TomServo]

National socialist, social democrats, etc.

The point is that they want to argue about how they can justify not having themselves pay the actual cost of what they want and force someone else to subsidize what they want. On the other hand, another person who is not using that service or needing that resource is expected to pay for it. That is simply not sustainable. It doesn't work, never has worked, and has failed every single time it has been tried because it removes all market incentives for efficiency.

For example: If you get something that really costs $5,000 for free, are you going to be all that diligent in making sure you got everything you were supposed to? Are you going to really push the provider to give you whatever it is at the lowest possible cost? Does the provider of that service get any incentive to find better ways of doing it if the end user is not really footing the bill for it?

If the end user is footing the bill, maybe they go over that bill a little more closely. Maybe instead of taking that hospital tylenol at $5 a pill, they bring their own from home. Maybe instead of pauing $15 for that gauze, they get a friend to run over to the pharmacy and pick some up for $2. In other words, when people pay the *actual* costs of the services they consume, they find ways of reducing those costs. Providers are given market incentives to increase efficiency and reduce the costs of delivering the service. When the costs are borne by someone who has no connection whatsoever with the service, there is no such incentive. In fact, the provider can continue jacking up prices because the end user never pays the actual cost and those subsidizing the cost never see the bill.

Making other people pay for your services never works.

National Socialist= Nazi .... Social Libertarian= Anarchist

get your ists and isms straight!

[geekster]

National Socialist= Nazi .... Social Libertarian= Anarchist

get your ists and isms straight!

I know that. But it makes no difference. I specifically left out the "social libertarian" The "national socialist" sort still promise people that they will get more stuff. I do NOT see "social libertarian" as anarchist. I see "anarchist" as "spoiled brats who just want to break shit". I have absolutely zero respect for "anarchists". They are basically social vandals who get their kicks from screwing things up.

Social Libertarian to me is the person who says "leave me alone to live my life and I leave you alone to live yours". Anarchists are always getting in people's faces demanding that things go their way or at least nobody else's way. They basically suck. Anarchy is also unsustainable because it eventually leads to law of the jungle. Whoever has the most bullets wins.

[geekster]

Basically, if your political thesis is one of "vote for us because we will give you more shit than you can ever possibly attain for yourself and we will punish those who have more shit than you", then it isn't going to work. It might be quite popular, but it never actually works out because at some point you run out of other people's shit to take to give to the others and the entire economy collapses.

I would rather see a "vote for us and you will be able to work your way up and attain a better quality of life for you and your kids".

Why isn't there a "poor asian" affinity group in the Democratic party? Stop and think about that.

And to be honest, many of the traditional affinity groups the Democrats have had for many years are getting sick of being taken advantage of. Poor blacks only benefit the Democrats for as long as they remain poor blacks. Same with poor Hispanics. Once they prosper to the point where they don't need the programs, what do the Democrats have to offer them? If they should become "rich", they become the "enemy". The Democrats remain in power by keeping people poor and on programs.

And the people buy into it because, frankly, who wants to have to work? Better to sit on the couch and collect a check. Except eventually you run out of money to provide those checks and here we are.

[TomServo]

I wont say anarchists arent idiots..but their are serious anarchists...NOT Nihilists! who are pretty close to "libertarians". Social Libertarian, is in fact, an old term for Anarchists. look it up!

Whenever I hear the S word, its usually from the right...who are deluded... and its getting old.

[geekster]

I wont say anarchists arent idiots..but their are serious anarchists...NOT Nihilists! who are pretty close to "libertarians". Social Libertarian, is in fact, an old term for Anarchists. look it up!

Whenever I hear the S word, its usually from the right...who are deluded... and its getting old.

Socialism just doesn't work. Getting people to pay for things they aren't using and getting people to use things they aren't paying for fucks everything up.

It just doesn't work because a person in the middle who is neither paying for nor using the service (i.e. the bureaucrat) can't make a good decision because he feels neither the need nor the pain of either party.

It is just the most idiotic system ever devised by human beings and has proved out so in actual practice.

[TomServo]

I wont say anarchists arent idiots..but their are serious anarchists...NOT Nihilists! who are pretty close to "libertarians". Social Libertarian, is in fact, an old term for Anarchists. look it up!

Whenever I hear the S word, its usually from the right...who are deluded... and its getting old.

Socialism just doesn't work. Getting people to pay for things they aren't using and getting people to use things they aren't paying for fucks everything up.

It just doesn't work because a person in the middle who is neither paying for nor using the service (i.e. the bureaucrat) can't make a good decision because he feels neither the need nor the pain of either party.

It is just the most idiotic system ever devised by human beings and has proved out so in actual practice.

Weve been doing that all along! even with the Bush socialists! Government is the most idiotic system ever devised by humans...unfortunately, humans arent that bright either!

[geekster]

Well, there needs to be some form of government. If all roads were privately owned, we would have a horrible situation. Government itself isn't bad, it is the form of government that can be bad.

We need roads. We need schools. We need a military. What we don't need is a government that tries to protect you against yourself. Government is not your parent.

I am too sleepy to comment further but generally, we could do a lot better than we are doing now by doing a lot less.

[cowboyangel]

TARP was the greatest expression of recent "socialism" and the $$$ went to "banks' oh dear ones...also the unseen trillions in bought up toxic assets....off the bankers books and onto the peoples backs..... so much for this Fox News rant on "socialism" it's ok when the rich employ it but not when it goes to the poor or the underprivileged. You twisted fool. Fuck you.