Why? As has been pointed out Commissar=Troll. That’s all you need to know. There is no belief or genuine conviction to be supported. **Stop feeding him **and he will crawl back under his bridge and wait for the billy goats.
Your point is well taken.
Although this works better for me. Particularly with the image cut in at about 18 seconds. 
First the disclaimer: I am not your friend either.
To the point: I live in a “socialist liberal” country. It’s not a republic, though, it’s a parliamentary kingdom (more that half of Northern Europe are kingdoms, not republics. I give you the UK, The Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Norway and Sweden). And from being raised and still living in one of these “socialist liberal” countries, I believe I’ve got a better grasp on what (democratic) socialism is than you have shown to have.
Let’s see, what North European country is a “social liberal republic”?
Finland? Maybe. Their president is Social Democratic, although their PM is from the Center Party.
Germany? Borderline “North European”, and their chancellor represents CDU, which is a conservative party.
Poland? Center/right.
Lithuania? Conservative.
Latvia? Center/right.
Estonia? Center/right.
What about the kingdoms?
Norway? Social democratic/center/socialist alliance.
Sweden? Conservative.
Denmark? Conservative/liberal.
UK? Conservative/liberal.
The Netherlands? Conservative/liberal.
Belgium? Center/right.
Conclusion: You demonstrate once again that you’re talking out of your ass.
You’re right. I mixed up my terms: I am an authoritarian rather than an autocrat. You are quite correct that the latter could not be reconciled with my economic and political ideologies. My apologies for any inadvertent confusion.
Just FYI: this is not the first Security Council referral to the ICC. This is the second, with Sudan being the first.
You would be correct, were it true that asking humans for their input would guarantee their long-term happiness. Unfortunately, this is simply not the case. In nation after nation, we have seen direct elections result in extreme human suffering (both for the voters and for the outsiders). Psychological studies, meanwhile, have shed light on irrational mob behavior and the inability of most people to engage in adequate long-term planning.
In other words, you can hold elections, but you cannot make those elections lead to the maximization of human happiness. Why would it? Take a look around you. Most of the people are incapable of managing their own dreary lives, much less the life of the nation. Asking them to do so is like giving a monkey a grenade and expecting it to hunt down Bin Laden. You are bound to end up disappointed, and quite possibly dead.
Ultimately, I think that it is nearly impossible to give the humans both things. You can either make them happy, or you can let them vote. I choose to make them happy. No amount of balloting can make up for a miserable existence.
No, I’m afraid that reality doesn’t work that way. Once again, you are taking your own personal opinion and attempting to pass it off as a universal truth. Your opinion does not, in and of itself, do anything to diminish my opinion in regards to the sufficiency of a government-managed economy for the establishment of socialism.
This is akin to an argument that the US is not a representative democracy because the presence of fair multi-party elections alone is not enough to make a nation a representative democracy. Without more, such an argument is mere opinion. Additional information needs to be presented: Why do you think so? Do your words have any additional weight over those of the next guy over?
Ultimately, I think that your train of thought is an exercise in futility. Socialism is a decentralized global ideology. There is no one accepted formulation, there is no governing body, and there is no authority issuing membership in the “club.” You arguing that X does or does not qualify as a socialist is akin to me arguing that Y is or is not a Christian. It’s an un-winnable argument that does nothing but waste one’s time; matters of ideological affiliation are less susceptible to a factual analysis than you seem to assume.
Ah, I get it now. How do “the people” know they’re happy? Well, the answer is clear as day: They must ask Commissar!
Look at how well that’s playing out for “The General” (and if you don’t know who that is, you really don’t have a clue as to what you’re purporting to support here).
What about the Jamahiriya (again, if you don’t know what that is, you really don’t have a clue as to what you’re purporting to support here)? It sure looks as though the masses are taking over the state. But, wait. They forgot to ask you if they would be happy doing that. Thus they’re wrong!
Maybe you should try Winnie the Pooh’s method. When he got his head stuck somewhere, it was always in honey.
By the way, you ignorant sod, the poster above was referring the unanimity of the vote.
Just FYI: The vote regarding the Sudan was 11 in favor, 0 against, 4 abstentions. The vote regarding Libya was unanimous. Here is the meaning of unanimous. You might also benefit from knowing the meaning of abstention.
Did you see those nifty links I put in there? That’s called citing. It’s also called substantiating my assetions. All we’ve seen from you is more blather in direct contravention of what the mods have told you. Since you’ve obviously never lived under anything besides the American system, let me use an American idiom for you to understand what the mod said: “Put up or shut up.”
Yep. And the solution to people being unable to plan ahead and ensure their own happiness is to let people plan ahead for others’ happiness. And grant them absolute political power. And if people aren’t happy, to criminalize dissent. And to outlaw voting and redressal of grievances. And then to murder anybody who tries to change the system.
At least, that’s when there are some westerners to try to annoy. When it’s championing coups that institute tyrants, then fighting in the street is the only true measure of the will of the people, and it’s glorious. Glorious!
As a troll it’s somewhat elegant in its simplicity.
Commy has gone from mildly amusing to simply obnoxious. I may have been generous with my estimate of one to two weeks. I wonder if he’ll make it to the weekend (and how long it’ll take him to have a new sock?)
Good Lord, Commissar truly is a moron if those are actually his real views.
He masturbates at the thought of the PRC yet he’s clearly so embarrassingly ignorant of them that he doesn’t realize that they don’t adhere to any of them. To take just a few.
Ok, first of all China has been on a massive privatization campaign for decades and certainly is no longer anti-Capitalist. Moreover, only a dumbass, spoiled rich kid like him would be so stupid as to think the China has “labor codes” and “welfare programs”.
There’s a reason American companies are setting up shop there. China doesn’t give it’s workers remotely the kind of rights that workers in the West have, even if you discount the virtually complete absence of safety regulations in the workplace.
Leaving aside the slaughter at the Square and it’s actions against the Tibetans, China executes around seven thousand people a year. The country that comes in second, Iran, executes a few hundred.
Again, only a spoiled rich dumbass would say that. Tell that to the Vietnamese or to the Tibetans.
Again, only a moron would say that China does that. The government regularly discriminates against non-Han Chinese. Employers are so blatant about it that in their advertisements for jobs they often specifically say “Han only”.
That’s certainly might white of you to endorse a government that does such things.
Oh my God, I nearly pissed myself laughing at this.
Does Commissar actually think that the PRC has universal Healthcare?
Commissar would definitely have been a fan of Mussolini’s Italy.
The General couldn’t handle one short straightforward question without melting down. 
It seems to me that Commissar’s mindset starts from one of two premises. It would help if he went back to GD and defended his premise .
Premise A: A republic – that is, sovereignty rests with the populace – is a Bad Thing.
Premise B: The USA is a Bad Thing.
Premise B can be deduced from premise A, like so:
Premise: A republic is a Bad Thing.
Observable fact: The USA is a republic (by representative democracy, presidential system, etc.).
Conclusion (equal to premise B): The USA is a Bad Thing.
Now it’s time to play Name That Fallacy.
Given (from premise A or B) that the USA is a Bad Thing.
Anything or anyone that the USA supports is Bad.
Anyone opposed to the USA’s Bad is Good.
Qaddafi is opposed to the USA.
Tf. Qaddafi is Good.
For ten points, NAME! THAT! FALLACY!
I’m sorry, “he’s being a troll” is not a fallacy. The correct answer is “George Washington.”
I score this as association fallacy, aka guilt by association. There’s a second fallacy in there, the name of which I can’t track down, along the lines of “A is bad, therefore not-A is good.”
It was post #1999. And this is post #2011.
2059 is the year I’m betting on that the earth turns into Waterworld. Unrest in the Middle East. Somali pirates (Smokers). Global warming. We’ll have the society of Waterworld before you know it. Waterworld here we come!
Yeah but he’s kind of amusing. Its like he role-playing the part.
Yes, that’s nice. I see how you’re reading the statement in question, and I admit that it is a plausible interpretation. However, when I read it, I read it as two independent claims:
“Just FYI: The vote was unanimous. First time ever for a referral to the ICC.”
Claim 1: The vote was unanimous.
Claim 2: The referral by the Security Council was the first ever.
Hey, aren’t you the poster that previously claimed to be a “linguist” and an “English teacher?” Sorry, I’m not buying that, since I cannot imagine either failing to realize that there are often two or more ways to read a given statement.
Anti-Capitalist? Sure, argumentation is so much easier when you simply make up the other side’s position! Anti-capitalism is not a factor I consider; government involvement in the economy is. The Chinese government is currently heavily involved in many aspects of the economy, and authoritatively steers those aspects which it deems best left in private hands (for example, by investing heavily in certain industries in centrally-selected cities).
Enough with the insults. Instead of ad hominem attacks, your time would be better spent, you know, checking to make sure that your claims are actually correct. If you happen to care about such details, at least…
Interesting, but let’s see what the “American companies” are actually saying. From the link above:
“But Wal-Mart and other corporations, including Google, UPS, Microsoft, Nike, AT&T, and Intel, have acted through the American Chamber of Commerce in Shanghai (AmCham) and other industry associations to try to block Chinese legislation that would significantly increase the power and protection of workers.”
What exactly does this prove? The US is number 5 on this list.
http://www.amnesty.org/en/death-penalty/death-sentences-and-executions-in-2009
Once again, enough with the insults (though I certainly wouldn’t mind being rich).
Also, you forgot to whine about the border skirmishes with India and the USSR. In case it wasn’t made abundantly clear earlier, I do not view imperialism as being found on the basis of border disputes or the reincorporation of wayward provinces. Imperialism occurs when the American Empire and its EU lapdogs send troops halfway around the world to slaughter Muslims. I don’t see China doing that; talk about false analogies. If you fail to see the distinction between these situations, then I admire the audacity of your willful ignorance.
Let’s see if I got this straight… So, it’s “might [sic] white” to support alleged discrimination against all non-Hans - a category that clearly involves those of a Caucasian persuasion. Thus, it is “might white” to be an anti-white racist. Good to know.
(The bolding is mine)
Oh. My. God.
You sir, are a comic genius. That actually made me laugh out loud.
Umm… by your definition then Mussolini’s Italy and Nazi Germany were socialist.
Glad you’ve been willing to come out of the closet.
Thank you for admitting that when it comes to workers’ rights and labor codes the PRC lags far behind the West.
It’s big of you to admit that you were dumb to suggest otherwise.
Translation, it’s only imperialism when done by Europeans, unless those Europeans are Russians who claim to be communists.
Thank you for admitting your biases.
Also, before shooting off your mouth about the treatment of Muslims, you might want to check up on how China treats it’s Muslim population.
So then you have no problems with the discrimination against non-Han Chinese.
Glad that you’re upfront about being a supporter of discrimination.
That does make me feel sorry for you, because in my experience, rich, white kids like yourself who are racist are usually overcompensating for something.
Maybe you’re morbidly obese or maybe you just have really poor social skills and as a result have a difficult time making friends or developing relationships with women(or men if they’re who you’re interested in).
Either way, I’d recommend seeking professional help.
Kolak of Twilo: I guess it’s quite easy for him to consider everyone else here wrong when he just blatantly makes up meanings for the other posters’ words.
FTR: Yes, I am both a linguist and an English teacher (not, mind you, “linguist” and “English teacher”). As such, I am quite familiar with the linguistic and grammatical concept of the antecedent.
Nobody can be that stupid and still be able to breathe on his own. Tell you what, “friend”; I’m going to do two things now. First, I’ll bookmark this post of yours so that in any thread that you toss out your inane parsings of other people’s posts (which, no doubt, in practice will be any thread in which you post) I can quickly post a link to this stunt of yours. Second, I will quote this post on every additional page of this very Pit thread so nobody reading this thread will miss it.
As both a linguist and an English teacher–also, of course, as a living, breathing, functioning, sapient being–I am aware that there are often two or more ways to parse a statement. That only applies, though, if the statement happens to have what we linguists refer to as linguistic ambiguity. The statement you’re mucking with here, however, only has two ways to be parsed:
- The correct and only actual meaning as it’s not ambiguous in the least.
- Commissar’s.
I’ll give you one guess what the thinking English-speaking masses will choose.
I choose door number 1 Monty! (That was a metaphor for you Commissar, as it seems you are really clueless)
I have admitted before that my grammar is a crime against nature, but my excuse is that English is my second language (and the nature of posting while sick or fast on occasion)
There is one thing that I can say, my reading comprehension and understanding is better than the comrade troll or dunderhead here.
Oh, I have to say I like the sound of Comrade Dunderhead.
Oh yessiree. That one gets my vote.