You might try that yourself. But, I expect that you will limit your restraint to not presenting any specific parallels between Nostro’s and Nicky’s predictions as presented in my cite.
Well, why should I? Let’s see:
Um, no…it hasn’t. So, BBBBUUUUZZZZZZZ! Wrong.
Right up Nicky’s ally, since it’s so vague it could mean anything. DING! Perfect Nicky like prediction!
BUZZZ! Wrong answer. But thanks for playing Vlad! Here are some fabulous parting gifts. A brand new edition of Straight Dope, the Board Game! This wonderful potted plant (both decorative and useful if dried out,ground up and put into a water pipe!). A wonderful ceramic dog! Let’s give Vlad a big hand, folks! He’s dead, stuffed AND a mass murdering bastard with the predictive powers of a nat, but he’s been a real swell contestant!
golf clap Thanks again Vlad…
This one was for comic effect, right? In any case, vague AND wrong is the bread and butter of such predictions.
Right on the nose here and…ok, I’m kidding. Another complete horseshit prediction that is wrong.
I’d say that Nicky is definitely in the running, especially if one is willing to stand on ones head, squint through one eye and play with the language to the full extent possible and MAKE the predictions true, even when they are complete horseshit.
But thanks for the laugh here…I needed it today.
-XT
xtisme, you’re shamefully wrong.
The word is spelled gnat.
:smack: My only excuse is I’m currently working on a NAT table, and somehow I just went with it…
I shamefully concede total defeat in the face of overwhelming evidence and will slink away to lick my router and await another debate…
-XT
Bro, (if I do not presume. Who could imagine that we have the same parents?)
You be welcome.
And laugh away. Another poster on this thread can teach you a few things about self-parody but he generally limits himself to a line or two at a time albeit time after time after time. Not quite a model of restraint, but I digress.
Try responding to my direct question. Please present …
For those who can hand wave this nonsense to the back burner, I (as presented in my cite) continue.
I will not debate this. Anyone who disagrees should practice total restraint or I may report you. Any rational discussion of the amazing similarity between what Nicky was talking about in 1916 and what is shitting on our heads today is welcome.
You are both excused. But XT, please keep in mind that all Lenin was saying is, you can run but you can’t hide from the Global Kleptocracy. His mistake was in thinking he could fight it on its own terms.
I do hope you’re talking about me, although frankly you accusing anyone of self-parody in this thread is equally ironic and humorous.
I disagree. Please, report me.
Although this is the forum for witnessing, you do not have the authority to require everyone else in the thread to join you in your witnessing. Disagreeing with you is not against forum rules. If you must have an echo chamber for whatever reason, perhaps you should be posting this stuff on a personal blog? (Be sure to disallow comments.)
And communism is Kleptocracy, isn’t it?
So, what you want is a bullshit list of predictions that I’ll just assert to be true because, well, I asserted it, correct? I mean, that’s exactly what you did, no? Unfortunately, I’d be lying if I so asserted, since I think Nicky was as full of shit as Vlad was. However, here is a list of the top 10 Nostradamus predictions (thoughtfully debunked for your viewing pleasure…to bad you don’t seem to get the joke).
I’ll probably get in trouble (again) for a Star Wars reference, but, to paraphrase Yoda: Do or do not…there is no threat of reportage, my young Padawan. If you feel you must report someone, don’t threaten to do so…just go ahead and report them and we’ll let the chips fall as they may. You can go ahead and report me, because I think this prediction, like your others, is completely full of fecal matter. It’s standard, grade A1 communist claptrap and horseshit, and it’s sad that you THINK it actually says anything substantial, let alone predictive.
-XT
If anyone needs help deciphering this 94 yo document served here to you courtesy of Google and Microsoft, I’ll make a suggestion. Lenin (cited above):
bolding mine.
Try substituting crude.
Somehow, it all falls into place. IMHO.
Why crude? Well, because as with the Nicky predictions, a bit of judicious change-age of the prediction really makes tends to enhance the image of the supposed sage, right? The irony, of course, is that Lenin DID think that iron would become scarce (or a monopolized resource, horded by Capitalists who would increasingly fight over it until only one emerged victorious and in complete control), but that his main point really revolved around production (and the ‘means’ there of).
But ok…let’s substitute ‘crude’ for ‘iron ore deposits’. “Concentration [of production] has reached the point at which it is possible to make an approximate estimate of all sources of raw materials (for example, the crude oil)”. Crude oil production is ‘concentrated’ only in so far as it’s a relatively scarce resource (unlike iron ore, which is pretty much all over the place, globally speaking ;)), so naturally it’s ‘concentrated’. Production is also ‘concentrated’, in so far as it takes a large capital investment to build a large scale refinery. However, new sources of crude oil are still being discovered, and previously untapped resources (due to greater cost in extraction) are coming on stream as the price of crude oil slowly rises.
What about this statement by Lenin strikes you as interesting? What ‘falls into place’ for you here? Please, no crypto-babble or disjointed rambling…try to be concise. What about this strikes a cord with you, and what about the current crude oil industry seems to resonate with you and your view of what Lenin was actually getting at there? I ask because I don’t think you actually are tracking on what he was really saying there, to be honest, and so I’d like to hear your take on what YOU think he was saying and why you think it’s important…or even vaguely interesting.
-XT
I have no idea what picture you think you’re assembling, but I’m fairly certain our ability to estimate untapped oil reserves comes from improvements in science and surveying techniques, not because we can count the heads of OPEC. Not that OPEC is composed of companies persay…
ETA - just saw xtisme’s last post, and I agree with him: I think that the main reason you’r seeing so many startling coincidences in Lenin is because you’re misreading Lenin, and injecting all sorts of stuff in there that Lenin didn’t actually say. Kind of how if I look at a green car and perceive it as blue, it has an amazing resemblance to the sky. Especially if I don’t notice that the sky is clouded over.
OK. And to whom?
I invite others to leave. The point is that Lenin, in this one instance, is an honest witness to the pervasive Corporate Kleptocracy takeover of every govt on the planet that was going on in 1916 and has come to perfect fruition in the good old USA, Today, Ta, da.
Oh, do I wish it were. How easily could we overcome ignorance.
You may consider yours disallowed.
Close.
Corporate Communism Is Kleptocracy,
I don’t give two shits what you want.
What do you imagine the term ‘Corporate Communism’ means or refers to? I note that Lenin also spoke of the capitalists waking up one morning and suddenly discovering themselves in a socialist economy (‘Oh my god where did my private ownership of property go!’), but that was complete nonsense coming from him, so I’d like to hear your take on it. Not so much because I think you can make sense out of it, but because I would like to give you an opportunity to review your own position and discover for yourself why it’s incoherent. (They do say that teaching is the best way to learn, after all.)
I can’t believe how fast you put that out. How many monkeys on keyboards you got working for you? Do you pay taxes?
swims closer Ooohhhh…shiny. And it’s got bright colored string on it too. Maybe just a small bite…
Nope. Can’t do it. Not going to go for it. Nope. Not me. puts fins firmly behind back Not going too…it IS rather shiny though. Just a small bite? Maybe just a nibble?
Naw…
-XT
Moving on.
Hardly hyperbolic when applied to 21st century Wall Street.
Today, it’s generally called Corporate Socialism, “free” enterprise for the poor and govt (taxpayer) paid for socialism for corporations. That’s when corporate profits are privatised and their losses are socialized. See if you can think of a recent example. No peeking until you’ve thought about it.Goldman Sachs
So just to clarify, this has nothing whatsoever to do with what Lenin was talking about in this quote, then?:
Because while I am still unclear as to what sort of socialism he was actually talking about (since it has no analogue in reality), he clearly isn’t referring to government bailouts of companies which remain private corporations afterwards. In fact, it doesn’t appear that he’s mentioned the government at all here, leading one to suppose that he believes that after all the resources of all kinds in the country have been captured by a (single?) monopolist corporation, that that coportation would suddenly discover that it itself had become the government (and thus, its resources would have automatically become socialized). How the prior existing government was expected to react to this, aside from perhaps simply evaporating, also remains unclear to me.
But at least it is clear that whatever he was talking about, ain’t what you’re talking about. Correct?
Well, here’s something I actually quoted from Imperialism in an early post.
More to the point?
I’m pretty sure you’ve not read my original cite, who could reasonably expect that? But this was quoted in a post.
You’re right, I’m not interested in reading dated communist screed that you have personally gone to the trouble of proving is irrelevent by quoting various portions of it that clearly have little or no relation to modern reality - and presumably you’ve picked out what you think are the relevent parts.
Speaking of which, let’s look at the quote you just posted. First, monopolies pay taxes, which definitely is “handing over to the state part of the promoter’s profits”, so Vladdie-baby is 0 for 1 right out of the gate. But ignoring that let’s look at the other half of his excluded middle falacy - do monopolies “serve only” to facilitate their own bailouts from bankruptcy by the state? Is that a goal that they constantly and continuously pursue? Actually… no. Monopolies are known for a lot of shady business tactics, but ‘begging for direct cash influxes from the government’ isn’t even on the list. 0 for 2.
‘But there have been bailouts! Like, recently!’ you might exclaim. Yes, there were. A couple of them, in fact. In the last several decades. A couple. And I don’t think they were even the businesses’ idea, though don’t quote me on that. So yeah, the accuracy! It’s stunning! Or wait, the other thing. A monkey throwing darts, only less accurate. Yeah, that.
Hey, tell me what you think of this statement: “Women are never born female; they instead are only born male. and become female through sex changes.” Scarily accurate, ain’t I?