i vote that this thread dies... either the guy is for real and he can vent in the thread he created, or he's not, in which case he's getting way too much air time...
dude, that's not way off topic... way off topic is "using a keynsian model, explain how the rise of capitalism in a post-modern industrial state, in contrast to communist pressures of a long-standing regime, could lead to china becoming the dominant force in global trade"
rookie...
(by the way, for those keeping score, i have NO IDEA what i just said)
dude, that's not way off topic... way off topic is "using a keynsian model, explain how the rise of capitalism in a post-modern industrial state, in contrast to communist pressures of a long-standing regime, could lead to china becoming the dominant force in global trade"
rookie...
(by the way, for those keeping score, i have NO IDEA what i just said)
The scary thing is I DO have an idea what you said
and my earlier effort was right off the top of my head... midget porn, top of head... now that is scary! haha
Well what about world oil prices raising the cost of shipping and therefore the cost of goods such as groceries, electrical equipment and porn!
dude, that's not way off topic... way off topic is "using a keynsian model, explain how the rise of capitalism in a post-modern industrial state, in contrast to communist pressures of a long-standing regime, could lead to china becoming the dominant force in global trade"
rookie...
(by the way, for those keeping score, i have NO IDEA what i just said)
A combination of economic and political factors:
The 2nd world war destroyed a tremendous amount of capital, permitting a higher rate of profit for a temporary period for capitalism.
Capitalism propped itself up by nationalising large 'essential' sections of the economy, coal, steel, rail, mail etc, but under the control of a bureaucracy rather than the workers in those industries. These 'state capitalist' measures were taken, because at that time, even the capitalist class could not trust these vital services to be in private hands, and run according to a chaotic profit-driven system.
This was combined with a political will for social change among ordinary people, determined to see their sacrifices in the war translated into decent lives, via decent public health and education services.
The existence of fully nationalised economies, such as the former USSR even in their hideously distorted parody of socialism, with no democratic control by ordinary people over their industries or lives, was also a threat to capitalism, as it showed workers in these countries that there was an alternative to the savage 'devil take the hindmost' cut-throat capitalism of the pre-war era's.
A strong and militant Trade Union movement in many western countries also meant that working people were able to win (temporary) concessions from capitalism - such as better working conditions and social provisions.
Capitalism could never really afford these measures, and is now attempting to claw back all the social gains made by working people in the 60's and 70's - with the terrible consequences of social disintegration we see all around us.
Debate!? My understanding is that 'debate' involves a freeflowing exchange of ideas and arguments, each subjected to a robust interrogation by the participants.
The above statements are clearly an ill informed social liberal rant and have no intellectual justification other than in the obviously addled mind of the contributor!
As an example, and to encourage and stimulate the flow of thought and creative juices...'given the opportunity, which opening would you fill...and why?'
Debate!? My understanding is that 'debate' involves a freeflowing exchange of ideas and arguments, each subjected to a robust interrogation by the participants.
The above statements are clearly an ill informed social liberal rant and have no intellectual justification other than in the obviously addled mind of the contributor!
As an example, and to encourage and stimulate the flow of thought and creative juices...'given the opportunity, which opening would you fill...and why?'
Debate!? My understanding is that 'debate' involves a freeflowing exchange of ideas and arguments, each subjected to a robust interrogation by the participants.
The above statements are clearly an ill informed social liberal rant and have no intellectual justification other than in the obviously addled mind of the contributor!
As an example, and to encourage and stimulate the flow of thought and creative juices...'given the opportunity, which opening would you fill...and why?'
answers on a postcard please...
i'd fill the pussy, just to see my load dripping out of it
i was literally just making shit up at 2 in the morning, still half-asleep... hahaha
oh, and to answer your question sweet, is there a "c: all of the above" option?
This is not multiple choice!! You believe that filling all the options is viable, its up to you to explain why that would be a desirable course of action....
