I DONT SPEAK WITH SEMI COLONIAL PEOPLES OF THE GREAT BRITAIN EMPIRE ,FOOLS
Advertisement
by Demarlandia » Sun Jun 05, 2011 9:14 pm
by Nationstatelandsville » Sun Jun 05, 2011 9:18 pm
Herrebrugh wrote:Chaoxian.com.cn, reported on Thursday that North Korea's Chosun Central TV recently
released the survey result of a 'Happiness Index (Gross National Happiness) of each nation,' which was
conducted in North Korea. According to the index, the happiest country in the world is China and
North Korea is ranked no. 2. Interestingly, South Korea is ranked No.152 and the U.S. ranks last at No.203.
Chaoxian.com.cn sarcastically commented that "North Korea gladly gave the no. 1 spot to China and North Korea
itself ranked no. 2. North Korea must be the happiest country in the universe." China scored 100 points and was
selected as the country where the happiest people live in and North Korea with 98 points, ranked at no. 2.
The top five rankings include Cuba (no. 3, 93 points), Iran (no.4, 88 points), and Venezuela (no.5, 85 points).
South Korea, with 18 points, was placed at no.152 and the U.S. ranked no. 203 with its score not marked.
Free North Korea Broadcast, a South Korea based broadcast, commented that the North Koreans who are completely brainwashed,
repeatedly proclaim "We are the happiest people in the world. I will trust ‘the General’ and always follow him only."
Some readers said the ranking is wrong as it seems to survey only those people who do not know the world. Therefore, precisely speaking,
the happiness index of North Korea should be not no. 2 but no. 1 in their survey. Some even commented that the those who voted were not
the common people but those who held power and authority in the government of North Korea.
Read more: http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/153551/ ... z1O7nX3Opt
Article link: http://hken.ibtimes.com/articles/153551 ... photos.htm
Wow, apperantly, North Korea is the second happiest country in the world, with China being the most happy country XD
America comes in last.
by Hathradic States » Sun Jun 05, 2011 11:26 pm
by Norstal » Sun Jun 05, 2011 11:29 pm
Demarlandia wrote:I DONT SPEAK WITH SEMI COLONIAL PEOPLES OF THE GREAT BRITAIN EMPIRE ,FOOLS
Toronto Sun wrote:Best poster ever. ★★★★★
New York Times wrote:No one can beat him in debates. 5/5.
IGN wrote:Literally the best game I've ever played. 10/10
NSG Public wrote:What a fucking douchebag.
by Demarlandia » Sun Jun 05, 2011 11:36 pm
by Herrebrugh » Sun Jun 05, 2011 11:38 pm
Demarlandia wrote:I AM NOT A COMUNIST, YOU HAVE THESE VISSION OF ME ,BECAUSE OF HAVE AN WASP SIGHT OF REALITY.I AM FOLOWER OF JUAN PERON AND EVITA PERON, SELASSIE,NASSER, ETC
I AM ARGIE, AN "BAD BOY " FOR THE IMPERIAL VISSION AND YOU AN AUSIE.
WHEN YOUR PEOPLE DECLARES THE INDEPENDENCE OF "YOUR GRATEFULL MAJESTY"WE GONNE SPEAK AN LITTLE MORE.....
by Demarlandia » Mon Jun 06, 2011 12:10 am
Herrebrugh wrote:Demarlandia wrote:I AM NOT A COMUNIST, YOU HAVE THESE VISSION OF ME ,BECAUSE OF HAVE AN WASP SIGHT OF REALITY.I AM FOLOWER OF JUAN PERON AND EVITA PERON, SELASSIE,NASSER, ETC
I AM ARGIE, AN "BAD BOY " FOR THE IMPERIAL VISSION AND YOU AN AUSIE.
WHEN YOUR PEOPLE DECLARES THE INDEPENDENCE OF "YOUR GRATEFULL MAJESTY"WE GONNE SPEAK AN LITTLE MORE.....
No he isn't a Communist. Otherwise I'd be ing hard right now.
by Zeth Rekia » Mon Jun 06, 2011 12:19 am
by Herrebrugh » Mon Jun 06, 2011 8:01 am
by Outer Chaosmosis » Mon Jun 06, 2011 9:02 am
Sibirsky wrote: I need to demonstrate the blatantly obvious?
Sibirsky wrote:It's a corrupt, government organization, that most nations are members of.
Sibirsky wrote: You should watch the flamebaiting.
Sibirsky wrote: It's available to the masses in the first world, because of the wealth those societies generate through the brutal oppression and exploitation of both other societies and segments of their own, through economies that, through deregulation and, at times, active government support, allow them to do so, and through exploitative trade practices. They trade what they have, for what others need and, because of Western trade policies, can no longer get, and both parties benefit (in the sense that, because of Western Capitalism, if the exploited group does not participate, they die)..
Sibirsky wrote:What exploitation? This is the most ridiculous argument.
Sibirsky wrote:Wealth, is not a zero sum game.
Sibirsky wrote: How in the world is the entire world getting richer? At who's exploitation? How are nearly all nations getting richer?
\Sibirsky wrote: If the United States was able to invade, simultaneously, the smallest 106 nations, and confiscate the product of their labor, over an entire year, that could power the US economy for a month.
Sibirsky wrote:Really? Trade did not start on a massive scale until the late 70s. Prior to the 70s, the US economy was far from being "in shambles." Why don't you actually learn what you're talking about before making a fool of yourself in debates. The US exports $84 billion to China, and imports $367 billion from China. In a $15,069 billion economy. It's significant of course, but it does not mean the economy would be in shambles without it.
Sibirsky wrote:The massive global poverty
Sibirsky wrote: is caused by your economic system,
Sibirsky wrote: corruption, wars etc.
Sibirsky wrote: Regardless, environmental damage continued well after Stalin's death.
Sibirsky wrote:I said largest economy, not population.
Sibirsky wrote:Did I say that? The waste is inefficient.
Sibirsky wrote:I measure an economy by it's overall size, not waste or energy use.
Sibirsky wrote:People save.
Sibirsky wrote:Savings is deferring present consumption for the future. Savings also lower interest rates. That makes long term investment more attractive as interests rates are low, and demand has been pushed back into the future. This creates jobs, and demand, both in the present and the future.
Sibirsky wrote:They exist though.
Sibirsky wrote:I wasn't talking about the pledge. I was talking about things in general.
Sibirsky wrote:Do you understand what I'm typing? Is my grammar the reason you don't or is it your religion?
Sibirsky wrote: Ah... grammar is irrelevant.
Sibirsky wrote:That's your claim. You claim that I support acts of the west's aggression and exploitation of the third world. Using your very own, corrupt logic, you support mass poverty and genocide.
Sibirsky wrote:No, it was one of the goals.
Sibirsky wrote:Ok. But trade was restricted to all items. Not just opium.
Sibirsky wrote:I think you misunderstand. If the west just said "well screw it, we're not trading with China then," and went home, China would still have declined. It may have taken longer, but keep in mind that China was wealthier than Europe, prior to the Canton System.
Sibirsky wrote:The support of the claim comes from the fact, that through trade both parties benefit.
Sibirsky wrote: Reclusive nations have never faired well.
Sibirsky wrote:There is nothing to refute. The claim is fiction.
Sibirsky wrote:Yeah that shit sucks.
Sibirsky wrote:What do you propose, we go back several hundred years and live in caves?
Sibirsky wrote:Every single one of those, was started by you.
Sibirsky wrote:They made their decision and it backfired.
Sibirsky wrote:You asked me how I sleep at night because I said drug dealers merely sell a product, after going on a mini tirade about the horrors their product causes.
Sibirsky wrote:1) Wrong. The relationship is mutually beneficial.
Sibirsky wrote:2) It's been 150 years.
by Sibirsky » Mon Jun 06, 2011 9:50 am
by Outer Chaosmosis » Mon Jun 06, 2011 10:02 am
Sibirsky wrote:Outer Chaosmosis you continue to edit my points out,
Sibirsky wrote: and have double standards for debate tactics.
Sibirsky wrote:This debate is over unless you start debating like an adult.
by ACoMia » Mon Jun 06, 2011 10:58 am
by Hallistar » Mon Jun 06, 2011 12:21 pm
ACoMia wrote:This survey is probably inaccurate. Happiness in itself isn't very easy to 'measure', and is very relative. Judging by the fact that the top countries are not too keen on freedom of speech. Needless to say neither are the bottom countries, such as the US.
And why do people keep on referring to China and North Korea as "Communist countries"? Since when were they communist?
They're totalitarian state capitalist countries, get it right.
by Hallistar » Mon Jun 06, 2011 12:36 pm
Outer Chaosmosis wrote:Sibirsky wrote:Outer Chaosmosis you continue to edit my points out,
Line by line refutation is neither necessary nor efficient in such instances as these. I have addressed the substance (such as it is) of your assertions and have substantiated my own points with reasoning and argumentation.
Outer Chaosmosis wrote:Sibirsky wrote:This debate is over unless you start debating like an adult.
Translation: "Rather than substantiate my points or address yours, I am going to accuse you of unspecified wrongdoings and slip quietly out the back door in the ensuing confusion."
The truth is, this was never a debate to begin with because you refused to make actual arguments. Nonetheless, this experience was not without its value, as it allowed me to demonstrate the emptiness and pathological character of many Capitalist platitudes. I thank you, at least, for that opportunity.
by Outer Chaosmosis » Mon Jun 06, 2011 1:07 pm
Hallistar wrote:So, you yourself can just claim that you have already proven your view by addressing a few points and taking that as an accepted fact, because in your view that should be convincing enough?
Hallistar wrote:What about all those face palms, /rofls, saying that he is not arguing but just asserting, labeling most of it as causation and not correlation by your view of what is obvious and a fact, and mentioning people's education's being fished out of some 'crackerjack' boxes?
Hallistar wrote:You wouldn't stop labeling what he said as assertions and not arguements.
Hallistar wrote:There was reasoning in it following the same pattern of yours, and you kept mentioning how it was not an accepted arguement.
Hallistar wrote: at times resorting to also using the "It's obvious" clause in response to his points,
by Sibirsky » Mon Jun 06, 2011 1:11 pm
Outer Chaosmosis wrote:I am afraid "it's obvious!" is not an argument (although you often use it, fallaciously, in place of one).
Outer Chaosmosis wrote: So whole nations can be "members" of the IMF? They must need a lot of office space! Nations are not part of the IMF: it is an international organization staffed and funded by people and groups from many nations. Thank you for, once again, demonstrating that you do not have a clue as to what you are talking about.
And I say again: Who cares who funds it? What is important is what it does and what it does is support Capitalism and neo-colonialism.
Outer Chaosmosis wrote:Fixed
Outer Chaosmosis wrote:I have already, of course, explained this at length. Subsidized products wreck local economies, the IMF and Worldbank offer loans to bail those countries out on the condition that they deregulate. This, in turn, allows Western corporations to swoop in and turn the population of those countries into sweatshop labor or to strip those countries of their resources and simply let their populations starve.
Outer Chaosmosis wrote:Strawman.
Outer Chaosmosis wrote:Is it hard for you to understand? Should I use smaller words? I am not sure where you get this lunacy about "most countries getting richer" but, suppose you are correct. That would only mean that certain groups are getting "richer" and, indeed, the complex of exploitation is growing more efficient and all-pervasive thereby producing both the "net" economic growth that you refer to (but, I cannot help but notice, refuse to source, as usual) and guaranteeing that said growth simply brings wealth into the hands of fewer and fewer people.
Outer Chaosmosis wrote:Congratulations, Sibi: You have one an all-expense paid tour of everything wrong with this response. Are you a troll or just a comedian?
1) Give me a source on this.
Outer Chaosmosis wrote:2) As I have already observed (several times), it is not all about labor: Some regions are turned into havens for sweatshops, others have their resources stripped, waste dumped within their borders, etc. Exploitation takes many forms.
Outer Chaosmosis wrote:3) Of course the US does not limit itself to exploiting the economies you mention, so the point is moot.
Outer Chaosmosis wrote:4) The products of those economies are often limited precisely as a result of exploitation (again, as I have already explained). Trade with neo-colonialist nations, for instances, drives businesses under and reduces the "productivity" of the country.
Outer Chaosmosis wrote:5) ....which allows that country to be turned into a very "productive" slave state by corporate exploitation.
Outer Chaosmosis wrote: What is interesting is that you do not seem to realize how much you are embarrassing yourself.
I will go slowly so you can understand. My comment was that China would be crippled economically IF the US economy were to fall into shambles. As a result of that state of affairs, China is forced to fund the US' debt. That was my point. Which, you know, makes all that stuff you just said completely irrelevant! How do you expect to refute my points if you cannot even keep track of what they are?
Outer Chaosmosis wrote:As an aside, your point regarding the trade balance is, likewise, infantile. Basically the form of your "argument" is that, because the US was not always dependent on trade with China, that it is not dependent on trade with China now. All this demonstrates is the fact that you lack even basic critical thinking skills. Likewise, of course, you contradict yourself yet again: as you yourself say, economies change over time. Whether or not the US depended on China in the 70s, it certainly does today.
Outer Chaosmosis wrote:China funds US debt. China is a major US trading partner. Likewise, of course, if trade ceased with China, it would not result in merely the loss of $367 billion (wherever you got that number) but would also drive under numerous US corporations who depend on Chinese trade, sending shockwaves through the entire economy.
Outer Chaosmosis wrote:Wait a second. You just said that virtually every nation is becoming richer! Once again, dear readers, Sibi is caught in a blatant self-contradiction!
Outer Chaosmosis wrote:Prove it. You assert and you assert and you assert but, throughout this discussion, I do not think you have backed up a single claim.
Outer Chaosmosis wrote:Which are caused by Capitalism.
Outer Chaosmosis wrote:....for the reasons I described. My point stands.
Outer Chaosmosis wrote:So what? My point stands: The US consumes and pollutes out of all proportion to its population. This is a testament to the sickness of the system you support.
Outer Chaosmosis wrote:And yet Capitalism has produced the most wasteful societies in human history, societies that are even now in the process of destroying the eco-system and consuming scarce resources at an unsustainable rate.
Outer Chaosmosis wrote: Same thing. That is my point. Consumption produces a larger economy. Hence, the need for constant economic growth engendered by Capitalism in fact incentivizes waste and environmental destruction (to say nothing of "the tragedy of the commons" and similar problems produced by the Capitalist cult of self-interest).
Outer Chaosmosis wrote: Not in America, they don't.
Outer Chaosmosis wrote:Again, only in an ideal world. Alas, the individuals (and, indeed, small businesses) that save do not have control over how that money is invested by the financial institutions to whom they entrust their savings and that, as I have already observed at length, is where problems arise. Never mind the fact that governments and businesses propagandize against saving and, indeed, incentivize failing to do so.
Outer Chaosmosis wrote: There is one important difference: I have demonstrated that the system you support produces aggression and exploitation. You have not demonstrated any such thing with respect to socialism. Do better.
Outer Chaosmosis wrote:A goal made in response to the conditions I have outlined. A society does not just decide to be self-sufficient for the hell of it. They do so in response to a need for self-sufficiency. For a Capitalist drone, you sure have a lot of trouble grasping the simple concept that is at the heart of your perverse ideology: actions are motivated.
Outer Chaosmosis wrote:....Which is academic because Opium was the main trade item.
Outer Chaosmosis wrote:I think you misunderstand. That claim is a counterfactual, because that is not how things actually happened.
Outer Chaosmosis wrote:I have already shown this "fact" for the lie that it is.
Outer Chaosmosis wrote:1) China was not reclusive. China engaged in trade. Indeed, China had the West at a disadvantage due to its monopoly on tea. In response to that monopoly, the West began the drug trade and, eventually, attacked China to open its borders by force.
2) The point is, your claim is a counterfactual. You have no way of knowing how things would have turned out if China had not been brutally exploited.
Outer Chaosmosis wrote:And it is the fault of the system you support. Your ideology is killing the world by inches.
Outer Chaosmosis wrote:Strawman.
What I propose is the destruction of Capitalism and radical environmental reforms, for starters (but that is a topic for another thread).
Outer Chaosmosis wrote:Sibirsky wrote:You asked me how I sleep at night because I said drug dealers merely sell a product, after going on a mini tirade about the horrors their product causes.
Again, please show me where I supported the American War on Drugs. Please show me where I mentioned it at all.
Outer Chaosmosis wrote:"Trade in everything" is a bit misleading given that all the West was selling were drugs. So you admit to supporting drug dealers. How, pray, do you sleep at night? Drugs are a product that kills people, ruins lives, and created dependency and you see no problem with it.
Outer Chaosmosis wrote:Again you resort to droning platitudes. The West destroys China's efforts at self-sufficiency and trade on its own terms and then gives them a choice between death and dependency. They choose dependency and, by your perverse reasoning, they "benefit" by not dying of circumstances created by the West!
Outer Chaosmosis wrote:I must say, Sibi, that, as concerns your conduct thus far, I lack appropriate an appropriate description. I shall, therefore, endeavor to borrow one from elsewhere: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEkWH8DB7b0
by Hallistar » Mon Jun 06, 2011 1:19 pm
Outer Chaosmosis wrote:Well, well, well. It would appear that Sibi has a pet.Hallistar wrote:So, you yourself can just claim that you have already proven your view by addressing a few points and taking that as an accepted fact, because in your view that should be convincing enough?
What are you babbling about? I was pointing out that I have substantiated my points and Sibi has not done likewise.Hallistar wrote:What about all those face palms, /rofls, saying that he is not arguing but just asserting, labeling most of it as causation and not correlation by your view of what is obvious and a fact, and mentioning people's education's being fished out of some 'crackerjack' boxes?
What about them?Hallistar wrote:You wouldn't stop labeling what he said as assertions and not arguements.
Because they were assertions and not arguments.Hallistar wrote:There was reasoning in it following the same pattern of yours, and you kept mentioning how it was not an accepted arguement.
Please give me a single example of a substantiated position offered by the poster in question and explain, in detail, how the reasoning employed was comparable to my own.Hallistar wrote: at times resorting to also using the "It's obvious" clause in response to his points,
Please provide examples demonstrating that I did any such thing.
How interesting that you seem to follow the example of the poster you are defending by not substantiated any of your claims (which, incidentally, are confined to attacks on me personally, rather than actual contributions to the discussion at issue).
by Outer Chaosmosis » Mon Jun 06, 2011 1:35 pm
Hallistar wrote:I'm not his pet,
Hallistar wrote: I just find you very aggravating and frustrating.
Hallistar wrote: By examples, here's what I meant, all of them being your quotes:
by Samuraikoku » Mon Jun 06, 2011 1:39 pm
by Hallistar » Mon Jun 06, 2011 1:39 pm
Outer Chaosmosis wrote:Hallistar wrote:I'm not his pet,
Whatever you say.Hallistar wrote: I just find you very aggravating and frustrating.
Sounds like a personal problem to me. Your ranting against me is thread hijacking and nothing more.Hallistar wrote: By examples, here's what I meant, all of them being your quotes:
All that list shows is that you have the reading comprehension of a star-nosed mole. Please note that none of the quotes you list are Sibiesq statements of "it is just true!" but, rather, refer to arguments made either elsewhere in the thread or in quoted sources mentioned in the course of the thread. Using that sort of argumentative shorthand is not the same as passing unsubstantiated points off as truth.
Now why don't you run along and find a chew toy or something so that this thread can get back on track. Sibi's assertions, however unsubstantiated and flawed, were at least broadly topical.
by The Matriarchians » Mon Jun 06, 2011 1:47 pm
Lackadaisical2 wrote:This isn't a surprise. It has been scientifically proven by the best researchers in Pyongyang that imperialism causes suicidal tendencies, so while South Korea is a Puppet Government of the Imperialist US regime, the US must be even more unhappy, as everyone and everything American is imperialist.
One day the light of eternal Leader Kim Il-Sung shall shine over the entire peninsula.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Aadhiris, Eurocom, ImSaLiA, Likhinia, Tungstan
Advertisement