And still there’s politicians out there saying things like “I will not ban fracking. I did not as vice president. In fact, I cast the tie-breaking vote to open up more fracking leases”. Playing with people’s lives just to make a buck. Really shows they’re not beholden to the people but to the owning class.
Oh hey look a guy on the internet who doesn’t when someone contradicts his baseless claims with evidence. There’s something you don’t see every day.
I never really looked into this (relation between speed limits and accidents/safety), so I figured I’d verify your statement with a quick google search and it turns out you’ve got it all wrong. There is a deep well established link between speed limits and accident risk, see for example here:
Now you know! :)
They probably just scrum pokered really well
The only thing I can find in this direction is a letter from beverage companies (including coca cola) opposing these measures. But that’s based on a very shallow google search, so take it with a grain of salt. Where can I find info about what coca cola lobbied for or against?
Does anyone else pronounce it “schmod”?
So taxing the rich is an unstable temporary solution, and more fundamental changes are required.
We hit a tipping point though, where 99% of people do not have any capital to risk
When do you think this tipping point was? Because as far as I can tell this was around the French revolution.
Bestween this and Yemen, Palestine, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Guatemala, Chile, Cuba, Indonesia, Timor, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Korea you’d almost start to think that. I wonder how many countries the real baddies have attacked. Must be way more.
With much love and respect I ask you to please read the remainder of my comments in this thread.
It’s sarcasm yes. I figured dropping a phrase like dicatorship of the proletariat would give up the game (honestly I thought my very first comment in the thread was already laying it on thick), but Poe’s law in action I guess. I do really appreciate you, keep up the good work.
Look, it’s like the scientific method, right? You start with a theory, and then you gather a bunch of data, and the stuff that agrees with your theory you keep, and the stuff that doesn’t you either dismiss outright, or you rationalize. I feel like I really can’t make my position any more obvious than that.
I appreciate your patience and your continued efforts to educate folks on this website, but I think you’re barking up the wrong tree here.
See now there you’ve made a crucial error. You’re recommending a book which, while it has some criticism of the specifics of how the USSR implemented socialism, on the whole it’s quite positive about the idea of establishing a dictatorship of the proletariat in general. Obviously that disagrees with my preconceived notion that humans are greedy, and that therefore capitalism is good, so I would never read a source that contradicts this, because I would have to dismiss most of it outright. And that’s just a hassle.
It’s suspicious because it disagrees with my preconceived notions about communism.
I think this is a good rule of thumb in general. When statistics agree with my preconceived notions, I consider them trustworthy, and if not, I assume that reality lines up with what I expect. For example, the referendum in held in the Baltics about leaving the USSR ended in favor of leaving, which I think is a good example of a trustworthy statistic. But the subsequent referendum in the remaining members ended in favor of staying in the USSR, and I think that’s a little suspicious, don’t you?
I’ve got this setup, but optimized slightly:
Facts don’t care about your feelings. You’ve presented zero evidence to the contrary, how are you this confident about your assertion? This is such a joke