Galactus

Members
  • Content count

    27,094
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

About Galactus

  • Rank
    Devourer of Worlds, wearer of Purple Hats

Contact Methods

  • MSN
    [email protected]
  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Pite�

Recent Profile Visitors

7,650 profile views
  1. Jesus Christ. Have you guys never heard a liberal speak before? That's the cornerstone of the ideology, right there. That individuals, not states, governments, ethnicities or classes, are what matters.
  2. A pretty big difference? It turns any unwanted operation into violence rather than a property dispute, for instance.
  3. But the most important question? Which Tingler is going to get the nomination this year?
  4. The problem is that food, economically speaking, is a bit of a sucker's game. (basic foodstuffs that is) Basically the reason is the fact that it's a neccessity, which means that the richer people get, the less they spend proportionally on food, while at the same time the costs for actually running a farm goes up way faster than the profits.
  5. The assumption here is that the working-class people got Trump elected, AFAIK, that's not really true. Most of his support was from the republican core (IE: middle-upper middle class white people, with a higher-than-median income) Clinton failed to really energize "her" electorate more than Trump got a huge surge in popularity.
  6. Ironically, that would be the authoritarian solution, rather than the liberal one. (where employers are free to set whatever rules they want while employees are always free to quit) Freedom of contract and all that. That said, the issue is sufficiently complex: Eg. emailing your company's pricing plan to your biggest competitors would certainly be grounds for firing, and for good reason. Divulging confidentially held information (by eg. a policeman, doctor, etc.) likewise. It gets even weirder when it comes to eg. Priests, employees of political parties, etc.
  7. To be fair, Farage was one of the few of the Brexit idiots who recognized this. It was the rest of the traitorous Tories who kept saying "We're going to have our cake and eat it too!"
  8. Yeah, it really felt like the books got worse and worse as they progressed.
  9. Which is a decent argument, but not what he actually said. (Heck, I'd argue the US itself went from less authoritarian to more authoritarian to less during the entire reconstruction-jim crow-civil rights era)
  10. Your argument was that you don't go from more authoritarian to less authoritarian without revolts or foreing interference, this is just not true. There are plenty of examples of authoritarian ruling classes (for various reasons) slackening the reins. Heck, with the exception of the aborted coup in 1990, the collapse of the USSR was not the result of either a revolution or foreign intervention, but the results of inherent issues within the regime itself.
  11. While I'm sure someone said that at some point, people have been saying a lot of stuff, that possibility still exists. It would however, require the continual contribution of funds to the EU budget, the usual arrangements regarding movement of labor, etc. Which decidedly does not jibe with either what your government has said it wants, or what a good chunk of the Leave-group campaigned on. You did. Services and labour are part of trade.
  12. No? The classic example would be the democratization process of the 19th century. While in many cases they were the result of revolt, this wasn't true in all cases. (Britain, Sweden, Denmark, Norway...) Napoleon III's reign is another example, as he went back and forth on the level of authoritarianism quite frequently.
  13. Yes they are.
  14. That's fair to broad a statement to be particularly useful.