Search results

This is the Donald Trump thread. I quoted you here since it seems a more appropriate place to discuss american politics.

Right, this seems more like it. :lolol: Go on then, why is it unreasonable of me to compare Woodrow Wilson's policies re. race to his predecessors in the same office?

This is one of the most consistently entertaining threads I've seen on NSC. While also being one of those I'm least interested in engaging with (at least, in any constructive manner).

In a sense, aren't we all Crawley Dingo? No. I was thinking of stardust. Sorry. :facepalm:

It does also rely on the assumption that Trump, even if he had such influence, has any interest in stopping Putin from invading Ukraine anyway.

The truth is worse than that. I've heard he's secretly... French. Apparently when nobody's watching he slips into a stripy jumper and beret and struts around the oval office shrugging his shoulders and making disparaging remarks about the rosbifs.

Yeah. That's told me. :lolol:

It's really not that hard to tell. I'd also suggest that if you've filed clapham_gull under "far right knob" you might need to do some reorganisation.

Your definition of socialism does not need to match mine or anybody else's. To be frank, I'm not interested in debating it any further. I responded to a specific comment last night, if I were interested in debating this sort of ecumenical matter over the course of multiple days I'd join the SWP...

That's not what you said in the post I originally replied to. You specifically referred to shared ownership of the profits defining socialism: This does not exclude the possibility of an individual/s owning a business worth over a billion pounds, while sharing the profits with the rest of society.

I was responding to the definition you'd written in your own post. :shrug: But if you want me to respond to those definitions, it's not incompatible for the means of production to be either directly owned or controlled by the government or wider society, but for assets (i.e. housing, land...

I don't think that, by that definition, there's anything to stop a socialist society having billionaire business / asset owners, as long as they're paying tax on the profits they make from their assets.

He's got an apostrophe in there correctly this time at least. Signs of learning. At this rate he might have mastered simple hand tools by the time the Sun runs out of fuel and expands to consume Mercury and Venus.

Ooh, touché. That showed me. I'm going to have to reconsider my whole view on life. I might get somebody to give me a lobotomy so I can better appreciate your perspective. Or, I don't know. I might not bother. I like to live life on the edge like that.

So you're an idiot and you have poor motor skills. :lolol:

Are apostrophes something you're familiar with in your media bubble?

I always thought Catholic Emancipation was a mistake. It was always going to lead to the COMMUNISTS getting in. I'd never have voted for Wellington if I'd known he was a BOLSHEVIK.

Notwithstanding the questionable veracity of the quote, I am absolutely certain Socrates never said that "slander becomes the tool of the looser".

The Democrats were the party of the economic left before the war (Roosevelt and the New Deal etc.) Democratic politicians in the South would go on about State's Rights and then when they were in the North would go on about projects to support the economy and working people. In those days most...