Socialism

[rosco rathbone]

How about indentured servitude? What's so bad about working off your debt?

Hey, it was good enough for my German horsethief ancestor, who was offered a choice between the noose or seven years servitude in the colony of Pennsylvania.

 

[Sean Renaud]

His theory is that the government is no less fucked up than the economy and. . .frankly we need to get rid of this idea that the government is bad. I don't want big government, or small government. I don't want cheap and I don't want expensive. I want an effective government.

 

[Byron In Exile]

Hey, it was good enough for my German horsethief ancestor, who was offered a choice between the noose or seven years servitude in the colony of Pennsylvania.

And he didn't choose the noose?

 

[cjh]

Well having the Fed regulate itself had worked so well.

"I was wrong."
- Alan Greenspan

http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/10908/Alan_Greenspan__I_was__terribly__wrong/

 

[rosco rathbone]

If monetary policy were controlled by elected officials or by appointees more closely answerable to them, the way it is in Europe, all Fed haters would be complaining that we needed to get the politics out of central banking every time the other party had control.

It's a no win situation.

 

[HB1965]

"I was wrong."
- Alan Greenspan

http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/10908/Alan_Greenspan__I_was__terribly__wrong/

Haha! That was one fucking big disgrace especially after he fucked up people's career's and reputations over deregulation.

"Oh yeah...there's nothing wrong with letting Wall Street deal with Derivatives. We won't be bailing out AIG to save our economy"

 

[rosco rathbone]

And he didn't choose the noose?

Apparently not, since I walk among you this day.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

Calm down, Irezumi.

Let me load up a bowl for you, man. Take a deep hit. Chill, OK? Peace, brother. We can totally disagree politically and still recognize each other as the same tribe or at least species, no?

I don't want to start a pissing contest with you. But how many Prix de Rome's have you won? Thought so. Well, I didn't win none either. So pass the bong, asshole. Any Guggenheims? Me neither. The real question is could you even have applied? I did. Your hit. Whatever.

Fact is, man, you don't have any moral cartel on outrageous rhetorical or visual propaganda. All the “meta” crap you're posting here is shit you ripped from google. But you get pissed off if someone uses the same technique on your ass?

Don't Bogart the bong, dipshit. You gotta share, spread the wealth around, my man. We be of the same people. But the difference between you and me as far as I can tell is self-awareness. I know I'm a self-interested asshole. In fact, that's my fucking signature. Human nature, my man. I'll sell you a something at the price you are willing to buy at and I'm willing to accept. Win/win. That's self-interest dude. You think you're getting a good deal and so do I. Socialism is the same deal but some motherfucker is holding an AK-47 to the head of the party he don't like.

See, you think you're morally superior. And because you think you’re better than all of us, you imagine that gives you special privileges, like stealing from us.

I’m your wake up call.

And that's what is so fucking ironic. You're declaring yourself a special class above us all, destined to take our money that we earned by hard work and distribute to your friends as you see fit and your moral basis for this is that you are a superior class of human being than us, so smart you know how to spend our money better than us.

Dude, you can't see the total, utter, complete hypocrisy in that position?

You claim to be for the people. But you are for a tiny, tiny special elite, which would control everything and destroy the very foundations of the nation. Which you problem hate anyway, right? Thomas Jefferson was fucking black women, right? Dead white bastards wrote the constitution, right? God Damn America, right? Chickens coming home to roost, RIGHT?

Yeah, I am the chicken coming home to roost. It's kismet, dude. Long overdue.

If you believed in one tenth of the peace, love and equality shit you pretend you do, then you would recognize me as a reflection of yourself and instead of busting up the mirror you would use me to wipe the fucking snot off your face, comb your hair and get a life.

Here's the bong, I loaded it for you, man. I really do love your art. But just like the mirror in front of your ugly puss, I can't cut you no slack just because you think you are entitled and special.

Calm down?

OMFG, I thought you were maybe fucking around, but you're totally sweet on yourself, ain't you? I'm gonna start calling you Narcissusatopia if you keep this shit up!

Guy, I know it's springtime and your laddish thoughts of fancy are turning to love, but don't get it twisted. I told you when you came around the first time way back when and I'ma tell you again now. You are not gassing me up in any way, shape or form. You ain't pissing me off. You ain't no wake-up call. Shit, if anything, you're more like a bottle of NyQuil Plus Cold Medicine. You may be a chicken that's Kentucky Fried and extra crispy, but you sure ain't any chickens coming home to roost anywhere near my neighborhood. All you are is a talkative righty bisexual dude who came to Lit for his cock and pussy kicks, segued into the GB, got wrapped up in the political dumbshit and now is trying way too hard to be cute. So tell me, Sandra Dee, what am I supposed to be pissed off about because of you? You gots to try harder than this. All that other needless, disposable crap you ascribed to me is just you padding shit out for lack of ad space. Call Condé Nast if you need some help.

Your views on what artists are is on some special edition director's cut digitally remastered bullshit and the self-serving opinion you blurted actually says way more on what you're about and not of me or anyone else in the arts. Diverse community and all that, maybe the Guggenheim you tried to get with was ol' girl Peggy back in the day. Time have changed, buddy. And so you discovered that I do visual erotica and then you switch up your passive-aggro diss tack to try to use my being an artist against me politically/emotionally/whatevuh and in between your name-dropping flirts and weak remixing of my posts and using meta like I done taught you in class, you attempt to paint me as a Socialist/Marxist? Yo...that bowl and bong you're mixing up? You need to put that shit down and get a glass of water, brah!

See, the only reason you're all about the just-add-water instant socialism smorgasbord and freely seeding the term around like basic herpes is because your glee club won't let your ass in the door to drink corn with them unless you toe the line and keep playing that tune. Which, fortunately for you, you have been doing in spades throughout this entire thread, apparently sans irony. That's all good for you if it makes you happy, but never ever again mistake your hipster parroting dipped in garrulousness as something profound and deep that nobody else can't smell unless you're around to tell them about it. I live in a city that has more people light-years better at doing that shit than you are, so while your concrete-facts-deflecting gibber-gabber may impress a few out there in radio land, your flirting is totally wasted on me. And it's a shame, because you do talk pretty.

Now, Perg and Rich already ternt you out and put you away dry up in here and I guess that's why you ain't fucking with them anymore. I understand. A beautiful and unique butterfly like you deserves to get left wet. But if it helps you get your hard-on at night, you can keep on flirting with me as much as you like. After all, the socialist in me cares about his comrade's self-esteem!

http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/comment/39/2010/10/d9b77ed2efb0853166c7b99fb945686c/original.gif

 

[Peregrinator]

Now it's all about you?

"I'm tired of you socialists....

...see, here's how you work:

Perg: ...etc."


Your post certainly seemed to be about me.

 

[Peregrinator]

the founding fathers were socialists.



http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html

Well, Eyer seems to think so. Perhaps he's right?

 

[Peregrinator]

Let's switch this up a little. Who here is a socialist, how do you define the term, and why do you believe it's the best way to do things?

 

[Byron In Exile]

Apparently not, since I walk among you this day.

He might have had kids before he stole the horse.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

This might be the post of the thread.

1. How does that define "easy taxes?" Who decides what is "tolerable?" Your answers have as many slippery-slope judgment calls as anyone else's. Is it theft if you pour toxic chemicals into the air? At how many ppm does it become "theft" as opposed to "cost of doing business?" Who has that authority? Who decides what is legal business practice and what is theft? [a]

2. Israel spied on the US. Are they friend or enemy? Cuba has done nothing worth speaking of to the US lately. Are they friend or enemy?

3. "Anyone who tried to fight or deceive it" covers internal enemies as well? Does that include organizations with lobbyists? How about, say, pharmaceutical companies not disclosing what part of their budget is spent on research and what part is spent on direct-to-consumer advertising? Contractors who overcharge the government? Aside: Which style guide? There is no THE style guide. [c]

4. Disrupting energy supplies is grounds for war? Does that justify other countries attacking us for the same reason? Alliances? See my #2 above. [d]

5. So whose responsibility are these things? If someone dumps a lot of shit in the MS River in MN, who sues them? Everyone downstream? [e]

6. Call it what you will...it's still fear-mongering. Remember when he was going to take everyone's guns away and make ammunition impossible to find? If fear-mongering is a bad idea, then why do you engage in it yourself? [f]

You can see tacit admissions of whatever you want. You seem to think that only one side is a slippery slope, and I keep showing you that both are. What's wrong with Republicans using science? Your definition of what? My definition of what? Socialism? I have yet to define it. Limits of state intervention? I haven't defined that either. [g] Your last paragraph has an immense and pervasive infection of straw people.

a. Easy taxes: taxes on the act of exchanging goods and services, not "sin*" taxes on individual people or selected goods, services, or sectors. Our government is now consuming upwards of 23% of our GDP, that is certainly not easy or tolerable.

* and by this we don't mean religious sin, but the Socialist sins of wealth, wealth creation, and the imagined desire of business to provide nothing but pollution.

b. I can always count on you to drag the discussion into minutia. Yes we should spy on Israel and yes they should spy on us (Sun Tzu). Yes Cuba is a bad country because Cuba practices Economic Socialism and still seeks to export revolution.

c. does it not occur to you that the lobby industry is a symptom, not a cause? In this case, the State has become the enemy of business, like Tony Soprano a new partner that you cannot say no to.

When the government gets powerful enough to fight over, the people will fight over it, and to the victors go the spoils, thus setting up the next fight.

When Government gets so powerful that its purchase price is cost effective, even imperative, to business, then business will purchase government indulgences.
A_J, the Stupid

cc. http://www.slate.com/id/2281146/
Now here's our first listener question.

<His friends believe it is antiquated to use two spaces after a period at the end of a sentence.>

Yes, the caller is correct and he's also right that a lot of people haven't heard about the change.
http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/spaces-period-end-of-sentence.aspx

The use of proportionally spaced type makes double spaces after a period unnecessary (if they ever were). The extra spacing is often distracting and unattractive. It creates 'holes' in the middle of a block of text — trapped white space on a smaller scale.
http://desktoppub.about.com/cs/typespacing/a/onetwospaces.htm

d. Historically, in the modern era, yes. Without energy you have no economy, with no economy you have, well just about the same end result as altruistic government which strives to protect us.

A massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States...,
John P. Holdren
White House Office of Science and Technology Director

e. Everybody harmed, yes. Just like any other case. Your moral high ground causes you to put one cause above another, subjective, socialist-like law, while mine is objective in that I don't care to parse and classify harms in an attempt to give them both cardinality and ordinality.

f. Indeed, I am fear-mongering? My focus on guns and ammunition has always been towards that day when it all breaks down and social justice forces us to brute force to protect our families from the looters when they finally collapse their government.

g. You won't because you can't any more than you can declare a point when the environment has finally been "saved."

There will be no medieval magic when one turns to government to be their champion. Government is not a shining knight on a strong horse; it is a night mare.
A_J, the Stupid

There seems to be a very consistent moral aspect of your comments, mine are economic. Economically you are easily in the mixed economy camp, not the Capitalist camp. So the question becomes, what is it a mixture of? If not "Socialism" then what? There is no "smart" way to do Capitalism via government intervention, for government intervention never ends once approved, as I keep stating.

From rosco, I see a good, healthy fear of business, a fear that I hear from you and kbate a lot, especially when I posit that the role of government should do no more that establish a proper judicial system in which we are judged by the merits of our case and not social status and a sense of "fairness" for protected groups.
__________________
I understand your lament, the law cannot be trusted to protectively punish, for it can be bribed and thus we look to government to protect us from business. But the bribing of the court is a criminal activity and the bribing of the government is a legal, protected activity called politics. In one you have an opportunity to actionable remedy, in the other you have only the calamity of the calculating and corrupt.
A_J, the Stupid

 

[Sean]

Let's switch this up a little. Who here is a socialist, how do you define the term, and why do you believe it's the best way to do things?

I am, but I'm just going to bed. Remind me tomorrow.

 

[Peregrinator]

a. Easy taxes: taxes on the act of exchanging goods and services, not "sin*" taxes on individual people or selected goods, services, or sectors. Our government is now consuming upwards of 23% of our GDP, that is certainly not easy or tolerable.

* and by this we don't mean religious sin, but the Socialist sins of wealth, wealth creation, and the imagined desire of business to provide nothing but pollution.

b. I can always count on you to drag the discussion into minutia. Yes we should spy on Israel and yes they should spy on us (Sun Tzu). Yes Cuba is a bad country because Cuba practices Economic Socialism and still seeks to export revolution.

c. does it not occur to you that the lobby industry is a symptom, not a cause? In this case, the State has become the enemy of business, like Tony Soprano a new partner that you cannot say no to.

When the government gets powerful enough to fight over, the people will fight over it, and to the victors go the spoils, thus setting up the next fight.

When Government gets so powerful that its purchase price is cost effective, even imperative, to business, then business will purchase government indulgences.
A_J, the Stupid

cc. http://www.slate.com/id/2281146/
Now here's our first listener question.

<His friends believe it is antiquated to use two spaces after a period at the end of a sentence.>

Yes, the caller is correct and he's also right that a lot of people haven't heard about the change.
http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/spaces-period-end-of-sentence.aspx

The use of proportionally spaced type makes double spaces after a period unnecessary (if they ever were). The extra spacing is often distracting and unattractive. It creates 'holes' in the middle of a block of text — trapped white space on a smaller scale.
http://desktoppub.about.com/cs/typespacing/a/onetwospaces.htm

d. Historically, in the modern era, yes. Without energy you have no economy, with no economy you have, well just about the same end result as altruistic government which strives to protect us.

A massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States...,
John P. Holdren
White House Office of Science and Technology Director

e. Everybody harmed, yes. Just like any other case. Your moral high ground causes you to put one cause above another, subjective, socialist-like law, while mine is objective in that I don't care to parse and classify harms in an attempt to give them both cardinality and ordinality.

f. Indeed, I am fear-mongering? My focus on guns and ammunition has always been towards that day when it all breaks down and social justice forces us to brute force to protect our families from the looters when they finally collapse their government.

g. You won't because you can't any more than you can declare a point when the environment has finally been "saved."

There will be no medieval magic when one turns to government to be their champion. Government is not a shining knight on a strong horse; it is a night mare.
A_J, the Stupid

There seems to be a very consistent moral aspect of your comments, mine are economic. Economically you are easily in the mixed economy camp, not the Capitalist camp. So the question becomes, what is it a mixture of? If not "Socialism" then what? There is no "smart" way to do Capitalism via government intervention, for government intervention never ends once approved, as I keep stating.

From rosco, I see a good, healthy fear of business, a fear that I hear from you and kbate a lot, especially when I posit that the role of government should do no more that establish a proper judicial system in which we are judged by the merits of our case and not social status and a sense of "fairness" for protected groups.
__________________
I understand your lament, the law cannot be trusted to protectively punish, for it can be bribed and thus we look to government to protect us from business. But the bribing of the court is a criminal activity and the bribing of the government is a legal, protected activity called politics. In one you have an opportunity to actionable remedy, in the other you have only the calamity of the calculating and corrupt.
A_J, the Stupid

1) I'm really enjoying this conversation with you. Thanks.

2) Thanks, also, for the grammar lesson. I was unaware, and I plan to kick it old skool for now.

3) I have to run before the socialist letter-delivery service closes on my eco-collectivist ass, the fuckers. I'll respond to the rest of your post on the bounce.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

I am, but I'm just going to bed. Remind me tomorrow.

That's what I like about you and vrose; you're not ashamed of being a Socialist in the way that most Americans are, so they use other terms, like liberal, progressive, moderate, pragmatic centrist, the no-label crowd...,
__________________
“And guess what this liberal will be all about? This liberal will be all about socializing, uh, uh… would be about basically about taking over the government running all of your companies.”
Maxine Waters

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

1) I'm really enjoying this conversation with you. Thanks.

2) Thanks, also, for the grammar lesson. I was unaware, and I plan to kick it old skool for now.

3) I have to run before the socialist letter-delivery service closes on my eco-collectivist ass, the fuckers. I'll respond to the rest of your post on the bounce.

I was old-school until I read Slate and I thought, man I don't want to give those progressives ANOTHER serious charge to hurl at me; more proof of how uneducated I am...

 

[Peregrinator]

I was old-school until I read Slate and I thought, man I don't want to give those progressives ANOTHER serious charge to hurl at me; more proof of how uneducated I am...

I hear you. I may have posted this before, but back in the middle ages (Hint: Madonna was still cool...) I was taking Advanced Grammar with Professor Henry Vittum (name included because 1) he's dead, so no worries about outing him, and 2) it's like the perfect name for a grammar proffessor), who was easily in his seventies and near retirement, when I pointed out a split infinitive in some passage we were analyzing in class.

Vittum: (lowers glasses over nose and looks at me over them) Oh, <Perg>, even I'm not old enough to be concerned about split infinitives.

Ah...the living language...

 

[Peregrinator]

That's what I like about you and vrose; you're not ashamed of being a Socialist in the way that most Americans are, so they use other terms, like liberal, progressive, moderate, pragmatic centrist, the no-label crowd...,
__________________
“And guess what this liberal will be all about? This liberal will be all about socializing, uh, uh… would be about basically about taking over the government running all of your companies.”
Maxine Waters

I don't really understand this...it's like you think that anyone who isn't a black marketeer is a socialist. Is that accurate?

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

I don't really understand this...it's like you think that anyone who isn't a black marketeer is a socialist. Is that accurate?

No. Anyone who believes in a mixed economy is not a Capitalist and if you are not a Capitalist, then to some degree you are a Socialist, a believer in State Actions with the goal of Positive Interferences (von Humboldt) something that begins with the best of intentions and ends in unintended consequences. If you do something for one group with government, then every group has the inherent right to have some good done for them but every good has an after-effect,

If you ask your government to treat everyone "fairly," the only way it can ever accomplish that task is to treat someone "unfairly."
A_J, the Stupid

In short, it is impossible to be just a little-bit Socialist or Interventionalist. There's no end to going good, it is a noble action, justified and rewarding both for the crusader and the politician who is empowered by the Crusade. You see, it's easy to say you're not a Socialist, because you don't meet some certain criteria of a definition, but at the same time, you enable the Socialist by making government your champion instead of your rights to association and assembly, you become, to use an impolite phrase from our comrades in red, a useful "idiot" (or tool, of you prefer).

The proof is in the pudding.
More people earning benefits than wages.
More people receiving income tax than paying it.
Government consuming 23% of GDP.
You can't tell them to stop, because you asked them to start... (generic you, I know there's no record of you ever asking goverment to do swomething )

I have to go; time to prepare for the evening flood.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

http://troubletown.com/uploaded_images/ttown956.jpg

 

[Peregrinator]

a. Easy taxes: taxes on the act of exchanging goods and services, not "sin*" taxes on individual people or selected goods, services, or sectors. Our government is now consuming upwards of 23% of our GDP, that is certainly not easy or tolerable.

* and by this we don't mean religious sin, but the Socialist sins of wealth, wealth creation, and the imagined desire of business to provide nothing but pollution.

b. I can always count on you to drag the discussion into minutia. Yes we should spy on Israel and yes they should spy on us (Sun Tzu). Yes Cuba is a bad country because Cuba practices Economic Socialism and still seeks to export revolution.

c. does it not occur to you that the lobby industry is a symptom, not a cause? In this case, the State has become the enemy of business, like Tony Soprano a new partner that you cannot say no to.

When the government gets powerful enough to fight over, the people will fight over it, and to the victors go the spoils, thus setting up the next fight.

When Government gets so powerful that its purchase price is cost effective, even imperative, to business, then business will purchase government indulgences.
A_J, the Stupid

cc. http://www.slate.com/id/2281146/
Now here's our first listener question.

<His friends believe it is antiquated to use two spaces after a period at the end of a sentence.>

Yes, the caller is correct and he's also right that a lot of people haven't heard about the change.
http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/spaces-period-end-of-sentence.aspx

The use of proportionally spaced type makes double spaces after a period unnecessary (if they ever were). The extra spacing is often distracting and unattractive. It creates 'holes' in the middle of a block of text — trapped white space on a smaller scale.
http://desktoppub.about.com/cs/typespacing/a/onetwospaces.htm

d. Historically, in the modern era, yes. Without energy you have no economy, with no economy you have, well just about the same end result as altruistic government which strives to protect us.

A massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States...,
John P. Holdren
White House Office of Science and Technology Director

e. Everybody harmed, yes. Just like any other case. Your moral high ground causes you to put one cause above another, subjective, socialist-like law, while mine is objective in that I don't care to parse and classify harms in an attempt to give them both cardinality and ordinality.

f. Indeed, I am fear-mongering? My focus on guns and ammunition has always been towards that day when it all breaks down and social justice forces us to brute force to protect our families from the looters when they finally collapse their government.

g. You won't because you can't any more than you can declare a point when the environment has finally been "saved."

There will be no medieval magic when one turns to government to be their champion. Government is not a shining knight on a strong horse; it is a night mare.
A_J, the Stupid

There seems to be a very consistent moral aspect of your comments, mine are economic. Economically you are easily in the mixed economy camp, not the Capitalist camp. So the question becomes, what is it a mixture of? If not "Socialism" then what? There is no "smart" way to do Capitalism via government intervention, for government intervention never ends once approved, as I keep stating.

From rosco, I see a good, healthy fear of business, a fear that I hear from you and kbate a lot, especially when I posit that the role of government should do no more that establish a proper judicial system in which we are judged by the merits of our case and not social status and a sense of "fairness" for protected groups.
__________________
I understand your lament, the law cannot be trusted to protectively punish, for it can be bribed and thus we look to government to protect us from business. But the bribing of the court is a criminal activity and the bribing of the government is a legal, protected activity called politics. In one you have an opportunity to actionable remedy, in the other you have only the calamity of the calculating and corrupt.
A_J, the Stupid

Our convo has gotten so wordy now that I have trouble keeping all the points straight.

a. Okay. I disagree that those are sins, and I know of no business whose mission is to provide pollution.
b. Minutia is where the theory meets the saddle. I thought you said an enemy of the state was "Anyone who tried to fight or decieve it," which is what

spying on us is, by definition. So we...just continue to send them a shitload of money and weapons and love them and hug them?
c. Sure, it might be a symptom. I disagree; the state has just propped up several failing businesses, and has over the decades done all manner of stuff,

including military action, to support businesses. I'm not sure whether this happens more often under Reps or Dems, but it's blatant on the watch of either

party.
d. Okay...so any interruption of the free flow of energy is enemy action? Really? Then why aren't we busting our collective asses to develop a source of

renewable energy that will let us stop these petty squabbles and major military actions in energy-rich areas of the planet?
e. Um...you always suggest the lawsuit as a remedy...but by the time it's settled, the damage is done. You can't argue that the beach where the Exxon-Valdes

crashed is clean, or anything like it. The people who made their living there are 1) out of work and 2) not compensated. That's your ideal?
f. "Indeed, I am fear-mongering? My focus on guns and ammunition has always been towards that day when it all breaks down and social justice forces us to

brute force to protect our families from the looters when they finally collapse their government." Nah, no fear at all in that question/statement.

Seriously?
g. I won't because I'm interested in other people's ideas of those definitions. I don't want the thread to devolve into "Argue with Perg's definitions." An

ecosystem can be objectively assessed. Spotted Owls nesting in Wal-Mart signs is not a sign of a healthy ecosystem. Just one example.

I disagree with the notion that economics is the most rational basis on which to assess a political system. That's why you see that difference. Money is

not my highest value. Is there no acceptable government intervention at all in your view?

I like that notion. I think we disagree on how and where it gets applied.

 

[Peregrinator]

No. Anyone who believes in a mixed economy is not a Capitalist and if you are not a Capitalist, then to some degree you are a Socialist, a believer in State Actions with the goal of Positive Interferences (von Humboldt) something that begins with the best of intentions and ends in unintended consequences. If you do something for one group with government, then every group has the inherent right to have some good done for them but every good has an after-effect,



In short, it is impossible to be just a little-bit Socialist or Interventionalist. There's no end to going good, it is a noble action, justified and rewarding both for the crusader and the politician who is empowered by the Crusade. You see, it's easy to say you're not a Socialist, because you don't meet some certain criteria of a definition, but at the same time, you enable the Socialist by making government your champion instead of your rights to association and assembly, you become, to use an impolite phrase from our comrades in red, a useful "idiot" (or tool, of you prefer).

The proof is in the pudding.
More people earning benefits than wages.
More people receiving income tax than paying it.
Government consuming 23% of GDP.
You can't tell them to stop, because you asked them to start... (generic you, I know there's no record of you ever asking goverment to do swomething )

I have to go; time to prepare for the evening flood.

Then you believe in a completely lawless economy? That IS the black market, just with fewer consequences.

I disagree; I think it's perfectly possible to have a few regulations, like child labor laws, and still have a perfectly robust business environment.

 

[rosco rathbone]

Beyond The Slippery Slope

 

[Byron In Exile]

cc. http://www.slate.com/id/2281146/
Now here's our first listener question.

<His friends believe it is antiquated to use two spaces after a period at the end of a sentence.>

Yes, the caller is correct and he's also right that a lot of people haven't heard about the change.
http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/spaces-period-end-of-sentence.aspx

The use of proportionally spaced type makes double spaces after a period unnecessary (if they ever were). The extra spacing is often distracting and unattractive. It creates 'holes' in the middle of a block of text — trapped white space on a smaller scale.
http://desktoppub.about.com/cs/typespacing/a/onetwospaces.htm

One Space or Two After Punctuation, What's Your Preference?

One space, always (9354) 42%

Two spaces, looks better to me (11073) 49%

I'll try to convince my boss / clients / co-workers to go with one space (1760) 7%

Lol...

(Also, Farhad Manjoo is a nutcase.)