Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Has becoming primal/paleo ruined your life?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by sakura_girl View Post
    Why socialism so successful in Europe?
    We all do better when we all do better.

    Comment


    • Why socialism so successful in Europe?
      um its failing...

      Is it because people have stronger cultural ties to each other and overall have culturally inherited that mentality?
      no. Europeans murdered each other throughout history over the dumbest and most trivial shit, by the hundreds- women, kids, pets, no cultural ties to each other. Modern day revisionist bullshit.
      "Ah, those endless forests, and their horror-haunted gloom! For what eternities have I wandered through them, a timid, hunted creature, starting at the least sound, frightened of my own shadow, keyed-up, ever alert and vigilant, ready on the instant to dash away in mad flight for my life. For I was the prey of all manner of fierce life that dwelt in the forest, and it was in ecstasies of fear that I fled before the hunting monsters."

      Jack london, "Before Adam"

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Mr.Perfidy View Post
        um its failing...
        That's because of bank failures. It's not the welfare state that's unsustainable, it's highly-leveraged, ever-compounding loans.

        Comment


        • The welfare state is funded on borrowing, not production, so a looming financial crisis is a property of Socialism. Socialism inefficiently allocates production, therefore there is more scarcity and borrowing is necessary.

          Also, fuck welfare- why do people act like it's progress for man that more and more are dependent on hand-outs? Isn't the opposite progress? The whole line of thinking is just for losers.
          "Ah, those endless forests, and their horror-haunted gloom! For what eternities have I wandered through them, a timid, hunted creature, starting at the least sound, frightened of my own shadow, keyed-up, ever alert and vigilant, ready on the instant to dash away in mad flight for my life. For I was the prey of all manner of fierce life that dwelt in the forest, and it was in ecstasies of fear that I fled before the hunting monsters."

          Jack london, "Before Adam"

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Rojo View Post
            Yes, yes, I've heard all this before. It's balderdash.

            Government spending as % of GDP continued to grown the salad days post WWII. It meant an unprecedented level of stability, even after our industrial "rivals" (I don't know why they have to be rivals) recovered. We only suffered the recent huge downturn because we deregulated to the point of a banking crisis.
            That is a flat out lie.

            You have purposely lied and mixed your facts together to misrepresent the truth.

            The stability didn't come from the government spending. The government's vietnam war erased all stability.
            Starting Date: Dec 18, 2010
            Starting Weight: 294 pounds
            Current Weight: 235 pounds
            Goal Weight: 195 pounds

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Mr.Perfidy View Post
              The welfare state is funded on borrowing, not production, so a looming financial crisis is a property of Socialism. Socialism inefficiently allocates production, therefore there is more scarcity and borrowing is necessary.

              Also, fuck welfare- why do people act like it's progress for man that more and more are dependent on hand-outs? Isn't the opposite progress? The whole line of thinking is just for losers.
              Welfare for a retiree and for a healthy 20 year old are completely separate issues. It annoys when they are lumped together. If you're 65 and you want government to pay for your cable TV and cell phone, that's fine by me. Unemployed twenty-somethings having 3, 4, 5 kids and expecting taxpayers to take care of them — there's something not right about that.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Rojo View Post
                ... a new phenomenon -- libertarianism. Before WWII libertarianism didn't exist.
                Hahaha. No.

                From a US perspective the following is fairly accurate:

                Pre- WWII you had liberals, progressives, and conservatives. Liberals were the "roll with the changes, let people do their thing, equality and fair play" group, progressives were the "create changes, make people do our thing, efficiency and right action" group. Conservatives were the "fear changes, let me do my thing, maintain the status quo" group. Those were (and still are) the dominant forces in American politics.

                The progressives had an image problem due to their tendency towards eugenics and the like. A bunch of bad press was building up. They decided to change names. Fortunately there was a good name right there and they started using it: Liberal.

                The real liberals then took the name Libertarian (a term which previously denoted people who thought humans possessed free will, vs. determinism where our fates are fixed) to differentiate themselves from the erstwhile progressives. The new liberals spent the next 50 or 60 years tarnishing the term Liberal the way they had previously tarnished Progressive. About 10 years ago they decided that the old sins done under the Progressive banner were forgotten and they switched back to calling themselves Progressives.

                I don't suppose the Libertarians will go back to calling themselves Liberals any time soon. A few of us do, with modifiers like 'classical' prepended, but only when we are trying to make a point.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by kenn View Post
                  That is a flat out lie.

                  You have purposely lied and mixed your facts together to misrepresent the truth.

                  The stability didn't come from the government spending. The government's vietnam war erased all stability.
                  No. Government spending on Vietnam kept the economy afloat. It's called "guns and butter". Another name: military Keynesianism. No President since FDR has dared to deviate from it.
                  Last edited by Rojo; 02-09-2013, 01:06 AM.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Mr.Perfidy View Post
                    The welfare state is funded on borrowing, not production, so a looming financial crisis is a property of Socialism. Socialism inefficiently allocates production, therefore there is more scarcity and borrowing is necessary.
                    How efficiently does capitalism allocate resources? Let's put aside the airy/fairy social needs for the moment. I'm sure most rock-ribbed right-wingers don't think much of those anyhow.

                    But how does a laissez-faire system build its infrastructure, educate its workforce or protect its property? It doesn't. It allocates "efficiently" only if you put the aforementined "off-book" (along with the social cost of pollution.)

                    Also, fuck welfare- why do people act like it's progress for man that more and more are dependent on hand-outs? Isn't the opposite progress? The whole line of thinking is just for losers.
                    Yes. The welfare state is largely a comprimise. It's not what I want.
                    Last edited by Rojo; 02-09-2013, 12:56 AM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by ulnauy View Post
                      Welfare for a retiree and for a healthy 20 year old are completely separate issues. It annoys when they are lumped together. If you're 65 and you want government to pay for your cable TV and cell phone, that's fine by me. Unemployed twenty-somethings having 3, 4, 5 kids and expecting taxpayers to take care of them — there's something not right about that.
                      That's a fair point. But the ratio of the retiree to the young sponge is probably 10 to 1. Under the pretense of punishing the sponge, right-wingers are seeking to cut off people who worked and paid.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Rojo View Post
                        No. Government spending on Vietnam kept the economy afloat. It's called "guns and butter". Another name: military Keynesianism. No President since FDR has dared to deviate from it.
                        No, it didn't. Govt spending on the war caused the economic crises of the 70s. Deviating from horrible economic theories is a good thing.
                        Starting Date: Dec 18, 2010
                        Starting Weight: 294 pounds
                        Current Weight: 235 pounds
                        Goal Weight: 195 pounds

                        Comment


                        • How efficiently does capitalism allocate resources? Let's put aside the airy/fairy social needs for the moment. I'm sure most rock-ribbed right-wingers don't think much of those anyhow.
                          I am not really a capitalist either; I think that individual land ownership is not rational or defensible morally or logically. But fairy-tale electronic talking-heads men with rituals of subordination and imaginary powers I know to be the worst way to organize anything. At least the capitalists are busy solving real problems with real commodities in real places. (haha exception to the financier class, whose extermination and forcible reparation wealth re-appropriation would only convince me the good guys are winning)

                          But how does a laissez-faire system build its infrastructure, educate its workforce or protect its property? It doesn't. It allocates "efficiently" only if you put the aforementined "off-book" (along with the social cost of pollution.)
                          I think that me and 40 like-minded men in a given territory would make things like pollution too expensive an issue; unless they are willing to invest in mercenary death squads routing through a territory incurring losses pursuing partisan demolitions spiteful militias, the cheaper thing to do is make clean-running industry near us, or, go to the desert or somewhere without men who will fuck your shit up.

                          You really can't have this conversation with me though because I stroke my dick at things like education and roads and other such neophyte duckspeak orthodox homo-economicus horseshit in general. No planning and schools and shit ever did anyone any good anywhere ever ultimately. My priorities are entirely self-centered on my senses and my biological demands and expressions, and it just puzzles and confunds and frustrates me daily that this is evidently a near-extinct perspective.
                          "Ah, those endless forests, and their horror-haunted gloom! For what eternities have I wandered through them, a timid, hunted creature, starting at the least sound, frightened of my own shadow, keyed-up, ever alert and vigilant, ready on the instant to dash away in mad flight for my life. For I was the prey of all manner of fierce life that dwelt in the forest, and it was in ecstasies of fear that I fled before the hunting monsters."

                          Jack london, "Before Adam"

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Rojo View Post
                            Why is this necessary?
                            It's because he has the one right way and anyone who disagrees with him is by definition incorrect.

                            Originally posted by Mr.Perfidy View Post
                            I think that me and 40 like-minded men in a given territory would make things like pollution too expensive an issue; unless they are willing to invest in mercenary death squads routing through a territory incurring losses pursuing partisan demolitions spiteful militias, the cheaper thing to do is make clean-running industry near us, or, go to the desert or somewhere without men who will fuck your shit up.
                            I think you would quickly turn into predators that would be rounded up and put on a reservation or exterminated. You greatly overestimate your own abilities, and also your abilities to operate outside of our current civilization.

                            Good luck posting on here if you actually succeed at doing that without a computer, or even electricity.....
                            Last edited by magicmerl; 02-10-2013, 01:35 PM.
                            Disclaimer: I eat 'meat and vegetables' ala Primal, although I don't agree with the carb curve. I like Perfect Health Diet and WAPF Lactofermentation a lot.

                            Griff's cholesterol primer
                            5,000 Cal Fat <> 5,000 Cal Carbs
                            Winterbike: What I eat every day is what other people eat to treat themselves.
                            TQP: I find for me that nutrition is much more important than what I do in the gym.
                            bloodorchid is always right

                            Comment




                            • Primal isn't helping to dam the tide
                              "Ah, those endless forests, and their horror-haunted gloom! For what eternities have I wandered through them, a timid, hunted creature, starting at the least sound, frightened of my own shadow, keyed-up, ever alert and vigilant, ready on the instant to dash away in mad flight for my life. For I was the prey of all manner of fierce life that dwelt in the forest, and it was in ecstasies of fear that I fled before the hunting monsters."

                              Jack london, "Before Adam"

                              Comment


                              • Lemmy is God!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X