Fuck Texas. |
Gay people don't like Texas.
We already knew that.
That's not what this thread is about.
That's stupid - there's nothing a rational person can possibly like about socialism. It's savage, unstable, unpredictable, economically retarded, anti-scientific, and only ends in bloodshed - and not in a good way like Texas. :lol:
Socialism seems to have worked for great swaths of Europe. |
Everyone's familiar with the First Amendment's prohibition against federal intrusion on the freedoms of religion, speech, and assembly.
The Second Amendment's guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms is also well known, as is the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination and double jeopardy.
Though they may not know the relevant amendment, Americans also are aware that the Bill of Rights guarantees jury trials in criminal and civil proceedings and prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and cruel and unusual punishment.
Most citizens, however, may have little or no knowledge of two other critically important amendments -- the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Fortunately for Texas, Gov. Rick Perry and Attorney General Greg Abbott (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Abbott) know both well.
The Ninth Amendment stipulates that the rights enumerated in the Constitution and in the first eight Amendments do not preclude the existence of other rights belonging to the people. The Tenth Amendment stipulates that the states and the people retain all powers not expressly granted to the federal government.
In other words, the Constitution is not an exhaustive list of the rights of the people, but it is an exhaustive list of the powers of the federal government.
Citizens also must understand that rights not exercised can be lost, particularly when powers never granted are asserted or assumed without challenge.
Attorney General Abbott's recently-filed lawsuit challenging the Environmental Protection Agency's endangerment ruling on so-called greenhouse gases is, among other things, a welcome defense of our vitally important Ninth and Tenth Amendments.
The EPA is attempting to force-feed us junk science (http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=31353) that could cripple and control the state's economy with arbitrary rules concocted by agenda-driven, anti-business zealots in Washington, D.C.
Even worse: it's a federal attempt to push through so-called anti-pollution "reforms" by regulation that Congress refused to pass as legislation. Our elected representatives would not support it.
The citizenry vehemently has opposed and rejected such measures on their merits, yet EPA officials still are trying to impose sweeping regulations by federal edict, going so far as to use bogus research data from the now discredited University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit.
"With billions of dollars at stake, EPA outsourced the scientific basis for its greenhouse gas regulation to a scandal-plagued international organization that cannot be considered objective or trustworthy," Abbott asserted. "This legal action is being taken to protect the Texas economy and the jobs that go with it, as well as defend Texas' freedom to continue our successful environmental strategies free from federal overreach."
We are grateful to Gov. Perry and Attorney General Abbott for protecting our constitutionally-guaranteed rights against federal usurpation and we are convinced that other state's elected leaders should take a similar stand.
Gay people don't like Texas.Houston has a fag mayor.
The Western European countries are socialist, and those countries are among those with the highest standards of living in the world.
Therefore, it has worked for them.
The Western European countries are socialist, and those countries are among those with the highest standards of living in the world.
Therefore, it has worked for them.
Are you saying they wouldn't have been better off without socialism?
The Western European countries are socialist, and those countries are among those with the highest standards of living in the world.
Therefore, it has worked for them.
Are you saying they wouldn't have been better off without socialism?
I'm saying that it's worked for places with a small land area and a highly homogenous population.
The Western European countries are socialist, and those countries are among those with the highest standards of living in the world.
Therefore, it has worked for them.
Are you saying they wouldn't have been better off without socialism?
I'm saying that it's worked for places with a small land area and a highly homogenous population.
Would it have worked better than not having socialism?
The Western European countries are socialist, and those countries are among those with the highest standards of living in the world.
Therefore, it has worked for them.
Are you saying they wouldn't have been better off without socialism?
I'm saying that it's worked for places with a small land area and a highly homogenous population.
Would it have worked better than not having socialism?
Unless you can build a machine that can take us to (6)6)6 universes, there's no way I can answer your question. But I'm guessing no.
The Western European countries are socialist, and those countries are among those with the highest standards of living in the world.
Therefore, it has worked for them.
Are you saying they wouldn't have been better off without socialism?
I'm saying that it's worked for places with a small land area and a highly homogenous population.
Would it have worked better than not having socialism?
Unless you can build a machine that can take us to (6)6)6 universes, there's no way I can answer your question. But I'm guessing no.
So it hasn't worked out for them. And we don't need a time machine, we need a basic understanding of humanity to understand that humans live better lives with freedom as opposed to coercion. Empirical evidences backs this up as well.
The Western European countries are socialist, and those countries are among those with the highest standards of living in the world.
Therefore, it has worked for them.
Are you saying they wouldn't have been better off without socialism?
I'm saying that it's worked for places with a small land area and a highly homogenous population.
Would it have worked better than not having socialism?
Unless you can build a machine that can take us to (6)6)6 universes, there's no way I can answer your question. But I'm guessing no.
So it hasn't worked out for them. And we don't need a time machine, we need a basic understanding of humanity to understand that humans live better lives with freedom as opposed to coercion. Empirical evidences backs this up as well.
No, actually it has worked out for them and Europeans have pretty much the highest standard of living in the world, that is my point.
Therefore, it has worked out for them.
The Western European countries are socialist, and those countries are among those with the highest standards of living in the world.
Therefore, it has worked for them.
Are you saying they wouldn't have been better off without socialism?
I'm saying that it's worked for places with a small land area and a highly homogenous population.
Would it have worked better than not having socialism?
Unless you can build a machine that can take us to (6)6)6 universes, there's no way I can answer your question. But I'm guessing no.
So it hasn't worked out for them. And we don't need a time machine, we need a basic understanding of humanity to understand that humans live better lives with freedom as opposed to coercion. Empirical evidences backs this up as well.
No, actually it has worked out for them and Europeans have pretty much the highest standard of living in the world, that is my point.
Therefore, it has worked out for them.
They have high standards of living in spite of socialism, not because of it. So no, socialism hasn't worked out for them.
The Western European countries are socialist, and those countries are among those with the highest standards of living in the world.
Therefore, it has worked for them.
Are you saying they wouldn't have been better off without socialism?
I'm saying that it's worked for places with a small land area and a highly homogenous population.
Would it have worked better than not having socialism?
Unless you can build a machine that can take us to (6)6)6 universes, there's no way I can answer your question. But I'm guessing no.
So it hasn't worked out for them. And we don't need a time machine, we need a basic understanding of humanity to understand that humans live better lives with freedom as opposed to coercion. Empirical evidences backs this up as well.
No, actually it has worked out for them and Europeans have pretty much the highest standard of living in the world, that is my point.
Therefore, it has worked out for them.
They have high standards of living in spite of socialism, not because of it. So no, socialism hasn't worked out for them.
No, it has worked. And if they have a high standard of living, and they live in a socialist country, then socialism has worked out for them. Unlike places in the rest of the world that have what can be described as a free market and are in abject poverty (Somalia is the most egregious example of this)
The Western European countries are socialist, and those countries are among those with the highest standards of living in the world.
Therefore, it has worked for them.
Are you saying they wouldn't have been better off without socialism?
I'm saying that it's worked for places with a small land area and a highly homogenous population.
Would it have worked better than not having socialism?
Unless you can build a machine that can take us to (6)6)6 universes, there's no way I can answer your question. But I'm guessing no.
So it hasn't worked out for them. And we don't need a time machine, we need a basic understanding of humanity to understand that humans live better lives with freedom as opposed to coercion. Empirical evidences backs this up as well.
No, actually it has worked out for them and Europeans have pretty much the highest standard of living in the world, that is my point.
Therefore, it has worked out for them.
They have high standards of living in spite of socialism, not because of it. So no, socialism hasn't worked out for them.
No, it has worked. And if they have a high standard of living, and they live in a socialist country, then socialism has worked out for them. Unlike places in the rest of the world that have what can be described as a free market and are in abject poverty (Somalia is the most egregious example of this)
You're going to have to prove the link between socialism and high standards of living because it is counter-intuitive based on human nature and empirical historical evidence.
Somalia? Somalia is such a shithole because of statism.
The Western European countries are socialist, and those countries are among those with the highest standards of living in the world.
Therefore, it has worked for them.
Are you saying they wouldn't have been better off without socialism?
I'm saying that it's worked for places with a small land area and a highly homogenous population.
Would it have worked better than not having socialism?
Unless you can build a machine that can take us to (6)6)6 universes, there's no way I can answer your question. But I'm guessing no.
So it hasn't worked out for them. And we don't need a time machine, we need a basic understanding of humanity to understand that humans live better lives with freedom as opposed to coercion. Empirical evidences backs this up as well.
No, actually it has worked out for them and Europeans have pretty much the highest standard of living in the world, that is my point.
Therefore, it has worked out for them.
They have high standards of living in spite of socialism, not because of it. So no, socialism hasn't worked out for them.
No, it has worked. And if they have a high standard of living, and they live in a socialist country, then socialism has worked out for them. Unlike places in the rest of the world that have what can be described as a free market and are in abject poverty (Somalia is the most egregious example of this)
You're going to have to prove the link between socialism and high standards of living because it is counter-intuitive based on human nature and empirical historical evidence.
Somalia? Somalia is such a shithole because of statism.
No, you're the one who is claiming that the high standards of Europe does not mean that socialism has worked. Burden of proof's on you, brother.
Also, the lack of a state in Somalia kind of means that you can't say that statism exists there. Try again.
The Western European countries are socialist, and those countries are among those with the highest standards of living in the world.
Therefore, it has worked for them.
The Western European countries are socialist, and those countries are among those with the highest standards of living in the world.
Therefore, it has worked for them.
But isn't NH the freest place in the US? And doesn't it have about the highest standard of living in the US? So didn't it work for us?
The Western European countries are socialist, and those countries are among those with the highest standards of living in the world.
Therefore, it has worked for them.
But isn't NH the freest place in the US? And doesn't it have about the highest standard of living in the US? So didn't it work for us?
did you actually read the chart to find out why?
http://isteve.blogspot.com/2005/05/standard-of-living-by-state.html
Hahaha, look at that, NH is last on the list.
The Western European countries are socialist, and those countries are among those with the highest standards of living in the world. |
The winter is ok in TX. |
Therefore, it has worked for them.
But isn't NH the freest place in the US? And doesn't it have about the highest standard of living in the US? So didn't it work for us?
did you actually read the chart to find out why?
http://isteve.blogspot.com/2005/05/standard-of-living-by-state.html
Hahaha, look at that, NH is last on the list.
NH is #1 (http://www.statemaster.com/graph/lif_bes_sta_to_liv-lifestyle-best-states-to-live), that blogger just couldn't find any "Cost of Living Index" data. Slacker.
Texas is 45 out of 50 in the list you posted. |
The Western European countries are socialist, and those countries are among those with the highest standards of living in the world.
Therefore, it has worked for them.
But isn't NH the freest place in the US? And doesn't it have about the highest standard of living in the US? So didn't it work for us?
http://isteve.blogspot.com/2005/05/standard-of-living-by-state.html
Hahaha, look at that, NH is last on the list.
Yeah, and New Hampshire is still at the bottom of the list.
Excellent list, Rillion. How long ago were you in Dallas?
Yeah, and New Hampshire is still at the bottom of the list.
yeah and you still didn't comprehend a simple chart with obvious flaws.
Yeah, and New Hampshire is still at the bottom of the list.
yeah and you still didn't comprehend a simple chart with obvious flaws.
The list seemed to have to do with a family of four trying to get by in New Hampshire. Just because not everyone wants to live in your winter wasteland . . .
Yeah, and New Hampshire is still at the bottom of the list.
yeah and you still didn't comprehend a simple chart with obvious flaws.
The list seemed to have to do with a family of four trying to get by in New Hampshire. Just because not everyone wants to live in your winter wasteland . . .
did you completely read the chart?
Rillion.
Yeah, and New Hampshire is still at the bottom of the list.
yeah and you still didn't comprehend a simple chart with obvious flaws.
The list seemed to have to do with a family of four trying to get by in New Hampshire. Just because not everyone wants to live in your winter wasteland . . .
did you completely read the chart?
yes
Rillion.Yes? |