7UP? What is 7UP doing in a Pimm's cocktail? The discerning Pimm's drinker mixes 1 part Pimms No 1 with 3 parts dry ginger ale. Garnish with apple, strawberry, cucumber and mint. Tsk.

Oops! I posted to the wrong profile. Sorry about that! Glad we were able to continue our dialogue.

My comments/responses interspersed:

> "economics has never been my strong suit."

I know, my friend, I know. As soon as I hear some defense of "socialism," I know.

> "but i AM quite literate in history and government and of
> course politics."

Yes, my dear friend, but history is tied to economics, and these days, unfortunately, politics too.

> "while you are correct that a socialist state can become a
> fascist one,so too can a democracy."

Again, we agree! Yes, in fact, fascism is the offspring of democracy. And while not strictly a fascist, was not Hitler elected?
Is there here some assumption that I regard "Democracy" as some sort of "holy cow?" On the contrary, "democracy" is a type of "soft" socialism.
At least as practiced and typically defined.
Not market democracy, however, which is the same as the free market, and not problematic. But pandering political democracy is something else.

> "it is really the forces of ideology"

Yes, in fact the book I am now reading makes this point throughout. So did Mises. But I will say that Mises was not altogether correct in dismissing Marx' assertion that systems and structures influence ideology and not the other way around. Mises was mostly correct, ideology creates systems and structures and institutions, but Marx was a little bit correct, there is also some influence in the other direction.

> "i do apologize for my oftentimes rambling.maybe because i
> am a little out of my comfort zone when it comes to
> economics"

Do not worry my friend, this is the case with most people who have strong political/economic opinions. It has been called afterall the "dismal science." If people knew about economics, we'd have a totally different system of government or no government at all.

> "your last post really cleared so many misconceptions i was
> having during this conversation."

Glad to hear. Some of my other "debaters" get very little out of our debate so it is a refreshing situation.

> "i knew we were more in agreement than disagreement.
> and we are."

I think most people are actually in agreement about goals, they just disagree about means, mostly because of lack of economic education. But once that is cleared, the agreements become more evident.

> "the banks need to held accountable."

1. yes banks need to be held accountable for fraud, like any other business or person.

> "which by inference means the governments role should be
> as fraud detector and protector of the consumer."

2. if you still want a government, meaning you still want a monopolist to do this. But a monopoly is inefficient (this is one of those "economics" laws, but one I think is almost self-evident). So asking a monopoly run by kleptocrats to do this is like asking the wolves to look over the sheep.

> "you didnt mention it but i hope you agree the corporate
> charter needs to be rewritten in a way where they are NOT a
> person and therefore shall be removed from the political
> landscape."

3. Since I don't think government (monopolist) are necessary, I don't think it should be inventing legal entities and forcing those on everyone else. Corporations are the creation of the state. Without a state monopoly, they would look much different than they do at present. In actuality, regardless of legal definitions, a corporation is a group of persons, like a union or social club or a partnership.

> "this will (or should) re-balance our political system (which is
> diseased at the moment)."

4. Corporations are a symptom, not the cause of all our social ills. Lack of economic calculation is much more problematic on all levels. In short, government is not a solution, but the major contributor to the problem. And we still have not gone into the whole issue of how the government is not "we" or "the people" in any meaningful way and how having coercive rulers is a problem.

> "which will return this country to a more level playing field and
> equate to=more liberty."

5. I don't know that we agree here. Corporations are not the cause of lack of liberties. Government is. Corporations won't throw you in jail for not obeying the rulers; government will. Corporations will not garnish your wages. Government will.

> "this will open innovation,progress and advancements in ALL
> fields AND due to competitive forces ,will lower prices."

6. Things like getting rid of IP laws will do so. So will getting rid of most/all taxation and arbitrary regulation.

> "how am i doing so far?"

Doing great!

> "what is governments role"?

I heartily accept the motto,—“That government is best which governs least;” and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which I also believe,—“That government is best which governs not at all;” and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have."
I don't want government to do anything for me, and I don't want it to force me at gunpoint to do anything at all.
A monopoly cannot do anything good that a free competitive market cannot do better.

> "the anarchist finds it perfectly acceptable to tear down that
> government to build a new one."

If you want someone to rule over you by force, you are not an anarchist. What kind of government would you consider "anarchy?"

> "if something aint working the way it was meant to,get rid of
> it and try another."

What if I don't want you or anyone else imposing rulers on me? What if I believe I have a right to self-ownership and voluntary interactions and property?
What if I don't want your form of "government?' Then what? You still want to impose it on me?
I thought you were my friend.

> "well in an unrestricted market and pesky government out of
> the way what do YOU think is going to happen to a system
> driven by self interest and profit?"

Everything will improve. But government had to be totally out of the way. btw, where do you get that government is not driven itself by self-interest and profit?

> "and i am ok with that."

Well, the difference between what you want and what I want is that what I want is not to be imposed on you but what you want is to be forcefully imposed on me, violently too, if I don't comply.

> "illegal to have an employee owned business."

Like I said, government is a problem.

> "i dont know why it was illegal in this area and i dont see how
> employee owned companies would threaten a free market."

In a free market anyone can own any business they want or else it is not a free market.

> "but as you figured out.
> economics is not my strong suit."

Just because there is a law prohibiting co-op ownership of a bar, it does not mean that it is there for some reason that makes economic sense. It actually makes no economic sense so it must be there for some political reason or because someone somewhere profits from this restriction, as is always the case with regulations.

> "and my man,cant tell ya how grateful i am to have had this
> conversation with you.i learned tons,about you and your
> views and even some about free markets."

Remember, a free market means free, not "semi" free. Not privilege for some, like regulations tend to do.
Always a pleasure.

Love it. Fantastic execution of a one-pan-awesome, complete with banging, clanging, and then... some parsley tossed on...you know, for fuckin' garnish and shit.

Would that be the "Gochugang Sauce" spooned on at the end?

Uhh, that would be that imported equatorial-variety Mexican pipe-garnish, grows everywhere around here.

Getting even part time minimum wage work can take months, at least where I live. When McDonalds had a hiring day for all their locations in the area, there were huge lines of people hoping to get a job there. I counted close to twenty at the one I was at (which was a fairly small McDonalds compared to the rest in the area), most of them twenty to forty something aged people. Every time I checked on my status, up to a month later, they were still evaluating people from that day. I would guess the weed part was a joke, but even then I wouldn't judge the guy, some people waste their money on alcohol (far worse for the person and society), others waste their money on tobacco (he does, and again far worse for the person and society), some waste their money on the lottery, gambling, clothes, movies, games, cable... who cares what they spend money on. Everyone spends money, if they got it, to help hide the misery of their life or improve their life. So long as they aren't spending it on actively hurting others (hiring hitmen, dog fights, etc.) who cares what the money is being spent on? I can think of billions of things better to spend money on than drugs (I personally don't get the point of drugs unless it is for medical reasons, but I don't get alcohol or legal depression drugs and the like either), but I'm not going to fault the guy for doing them.

Anyhow, I have a part time (barely more than minimum wage) job, and still can't pay any creditors (largely just a student loan and some old utility bills and one credit card that is all of a thousand or less that keeps trying to garnish but child support is in the way, you would think they would give up)... hell, my kids will have a very disappointing Christmas this year... I have to borrow money some weeks just to get gas to get to work (very poor gas mileage and work is 20 or so miles each way) so getting a part time job likely won't help pay the debts at all. Even a full time minimum wage job doesn't make enough to pay for basic living expenses like rent, food and essential utilities (that is no cable) let alone cover any debts created while better employed. Who knows how many applications/resumes he'll send out that day, its only 11 am (although the place looks excessively dark for daytime), so he could be heading out later. I don't expect an unemployed person to spend 8 hours a day 40 hours a week driving all over town, especially since a great many jobs only take applications/resumes online these days (especially the part time minimum wage ones).

That all said, I agree any company scared of being recorded is sketchy... how do they know you are actually recording for one, and then who cares second unless you are breaking or at the very least bending the law?

>> ^BoneRemake:

I dont get how its cooking? just because it is a sugar ball?


I guess you could argue that it's a sort of garnish.

@renatojj

If paying taxes = oppression then how come the Swedes, with much higher tax rates than Americans are so fit, happy, well educated, productive and financially well-off?

You see, you have a theory, which you think sounds good. You fight tooth and nail for your theory, but you never bother to look at the real world and see if your theory fits what actually happens. There is a spectrum of economic freedom, taxation etc. in the developed world, and consistently those countries with higher taxes and less corporate freedom do better than those places like the US. I notice you completely ignored that part of my previous post. You skimmed past the meat and potatoes of the argument and tried to pick holes in the garnish (even there you failed, but you tried). How about addressing the actual gaping hole in your side of the argument? The hole that says it simply doesn't work when it's been tried, in fact the opposite proves to be far better policy.

I love tea but that's bit too funky for me, hot and with milk? wtf thats how I like Coffee

being from Georgia I like good ol' southern Iced Tea.

best way is to set pitcher of water out with tea bags in the sun and let it steep in the sun or you can boil it on stove

then sweeten with sugar put in fridge to get ice cold

drop couple ice cubes in perhaps garnish with wedge of lemon.

perfect southern iced tea

I mean I guess its kinda touching and all. But I get a kind of creepy voyerism feeling from this guy's intention to film it all down, as in he wants people to have an insight into his private/intimate moments. I think these kind of moments are best kept personal, even though it might garnish a load of internet hits, the whole production effort could of been put into something else.

Also the old people thing was creepy too, I know people think growing old together is sweet and romantic, but I'd rather top myself in some overly dramatic explosion, or hilltop barbarian battle than become that old. Thankfully the current generation has a good chance of being able to have old age reversed/halted in the not so distant future.

We have evidence now that primary figures in the so-called 'scientific community' were pre-disposed to be deceptive and misleading. They abandoned credibility for money. It was proven that they artificially weighted results. It was proven they had not been able to explain fundamental contradictions to thier conclusions. It was proven that their models were statistical gibberish. When asked to supply the data they used to make their specious conclusions, they admitted they threw it away. They lobbied to have opposing points of view suppressed from journals so that the appearance of 'consensus' was not disturbed by the harsh reality that 'peer reviews' were stacked by biased sources favorable to them. Their financial records proved they received huge amounts of money from politically motivated sources.

I've seen the data. The emperor has no clothes. The 'science' is nothing but unsupportable guesses garnished with faulty data and motivated by political payola. And yet the Warmer koolaid drinkers are still trying to jump the Hale-Bopp comet to Heaven's Gate based on pure faith. But the 'scientists' were on the take, had no proof, and who refused to undergo actual peer challenges. When faced with real scrutiny they have all been forced to admit they can't prove human activity is linked to temperatures. Period.

It's all there, black and white, clear as crystal. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDW0ZnZxjn4

Oh...yeah, and I had the ability to post a poll as well upon my return in chains that too has been adjusted. I have been told by the admins that for some unknown duration I will be kept in stasis. That's cool-hedging bets(tr-v) on their part between both sides of an abyss, will keep the rabble down, the monkey house warm and quiet for the time being.

Word to the cheap seats: I care not about posting polls, OR creating a new channel. I simply wish to be the fly I had always been...ointment lube and soup garnish, nose-tickler and sting your ass on the beach..

bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!

Glad to see you are back Kronos(don;t ever speak to me again ever)posiden.

My message to her: Good luck with that. Have fun having your credit score go into the toilet, and then you can cry and whine some more on YouTube when your wages do get garnished, and you're spending the majority of your free time riding the bus to work. That is of course if you can still afford a PC and an internet connection to do your complaining.

Why my attitude? Because I learned my own lesson 7 years ago, when I paid off $19,500 dollars of debt, $3000 of which was at 22% (cash advances) while the remainder was at 17.5% My minimum monthly payment was $330. I got myself into the mess, and I took responsibility and got myself out of it. Since then, I've been at 0 debt three times, heading to my fourth time this December. I raised my credit score to 830 out of 850, and I learned to be smart and frugal with my purchases. My only credit card has a $3500 limit at 7.25%, and I refuse to let them raise my limit. Sure, what the credit card companies do is bullshit, but when do you take responsibility for digging your own hole? You agreed to their terms, as stupid as they are, and borrowed the money. So instead, this fool is going to sit there like a child, forgoing any personal accountability, and hold her breath until she gets her way.

Sorry, but I hold nothing but contempt for people like this, as well as all those that were too greedy, and got fucked in the housing bust, and are now crying for their bailout. If I, of all people, was able to do it, then there's no excuse.

As a non-custodial father, I firmly believe that child support laws in many states are vehemently anti-male.

In my support order, issued in 1998, I was ordered to pay close to $800/mo for a single child born in 1996.
That's a (*(@*#$*&&*@!!! mortgage payment.

My wages are garnished as an act of first resort.
Attempts at getting the amount reduced have resulted in naught, partly due to my own guilt about doing so (it is my daughter, after all), and partly due to neglect by the enforcement agency.
At one point during a change in computer systems by the enforcement agency from county-run to state-run, my payment was behind, and the enforcement agency would not do any research into the reason why I was behind, as my garnishment was sent out like clockwork every other week.
Over and above the support amount, there is a 2% poundage (more like pwnage!) to cover the expenses of the support agency.
They will do nothing for me as the father if I have questions or issues with my support payments. Yet if the mother has an issue, they are more than willing to try to take me to court (even in another STATE!) or pursue me on behalf of the mother.

I am branded a criminal if I don't earn enough to pay my bills as well as submit to this outrageous legal obligation.


I love my daughter. I loathe the support system and the way it treats men in general.

^ They put him in jail for back support he still owes.

I'm paying support for a kid that's not mine as well. They haven't sent me to jail yet because they can garnish my checks from work.

State worker was a friend of the family and assumed since the girl and I were living together at the time she got pregnant, I had to be the father. What she didn't know is the girl was gone 99% of the time screwing other guys to support her crank habit. Needless to say I was told by said state worker that if I didn't sign paternity, the girl would not get support from the state. After about 3 weeks of holding out I finally gave in and signed paternity. Come to find out later what i always knew, kid isn't mine but I'm still paying back support for him (he was born in '83). And yes, they garnish my unemployment checks too when I'm not working.

This has basically ruined my credit to the point where I cannot buy a new car, rent a place to live unless I know the folks who own the property, or buy a house of my own. I feel this guy's pain.