The Big 3 Are Fucked

Aristotle wrote:this thread sucks.

i started a new one in the other section.

also, the world is fucked. we have only two options at this point: stagnate for 5 or 6 years and pay down all the consumer debt/build savings, or hyperinflate our way out of this mess, via the money supply.

based on everything that's going on, it looks like we're going the hyperinflation route. if that happens, the US dollar should fall rapidly, and gold should rise rapidly. gold just started moving up again (nearly 10% in a few trading sessions), so now we watch the dollar, which many are saying is at unsustainable levels, based on the new money being printed for these 'bailouts'.

we're going to get double-fucked, you can count on it.

The_Edge wrote:

dunnas wrote:

The_Edge wrote:

dunnas wrote:

The_Edge wrote:

thewalrus wrote:

Pennzoil GT-R wrote:

Aristotle wrote:hahaha

the preemptive miller attack.

fucking psycho rod

wonder if hes realised nobody reads his posts yet?

Good thing you dismissed his first post which was, really, correct.

I was also proving a theory.... without the second post, he'd claim he's got me on ignore because, there's no way he can respond back to it. Now I proved that 1) He did see it 2) He's got no answer.

Um, What? Nothing that Pennz did proves he saw either of your posts.

Dunnas... don't get me started. You know exactly what I would reply, I know exactly what you would reply to it, etc etc.

I don't want to get you started. I just can't follow the logic that you claim proves that Pennz has seen those two posts.

Are you that fucking stupid? Look moron, I am trying to be civilized here. I warned you, but you don't give a shit. You knew this was coming.

You're playing ONCE AGAIN the "poor, innocent bystander" card, in which you "naively" "do not understand" what I mean and/or "nicely and innocently point out a flaw in my post", when you're just stirring the pot and hoping a huge flame war breaks.

You also know that I will ONCE AGAIN call you out and point your gayness in doing so, and also provide proof on how stupid your remarks were (which is now not necessary, given that wally did that).

When I wipe the floor with your fat, pimple infested ass, you will then reply that I am a psycho and that I am being such a mean bitch to someone "as nice" as you. Pennz will then join the flame war and BOOM! Pandora box is open once again.

I tried to keep that from happening, but you're just so damned annoying. Hit that ignore button already and stop pretending you're all cute 'cuz you're as irritating as you're ugly. Like I said before countless times, you're just a sad, ugly fat loser who feels worse than the rest of people.

You and pennz are the perfect symbiosis, you feel worse than everyone else and he feels better than everyone else. Like an AF'er said in the old AF, "of course, pennz and dunnas will always be pennz and dunnas".

And with this, you tried de-rail my real reply (the answer lies between what the left wing nut -les- says about unions, and what the right wing nut -your boyfriend pennz-says about "the market regulating wages") in order to protect the chav you have such a huge hard on for.

Fuck you dunnas, just be a man and hit the ignore button like you said you would.

thewalrus wrote:

dunnas wrote:Pennz replied to post Aris made that said "hahaha, the preemptive miller attack" which came straight after 2 of Rod's posts.

So no, it absolutely does not imply that he saw Rod's posts. You're the one that needs to give me a break I think. You did this to me the other day claiming that I start shit when you had actually completely missed Rod's post before mine. Can you please go back and look at the posts a little closer the next time you're thinking of posting something like that.

Rod gets attacked from all sides an awful lot. I was wrong that last time, I'll admit that. I'm not wrong now.

dunnas wrote:

The_Edge wrote:

dunnas wrote:

The_Edge wrote:

dunnas wrote:

The_Edge wrote:

thewalrus wrote:

Pennzoil GT-R wrote:

Aristotle wrote:hahaha

the preemptive miller attack.

fucking psycho rod

wonder if hes realised nobody reads his posts yet?

Good thing you dismissed his first post which was, really, correct.

I was also proving a theory.... without the second post, he'd claim he's got me on ignore because, there's no way he can respond back to it. Now I proved that 1) He did see it 2) He's got no answer.

Um, What? Nothing that Pennz did proves he saw either of your posts.

Dunnas... don't get me started. You know exactly what I would reply, I know exactly what you would reply to it, etc etc.

I don't want to get you started. I just can't follow the logic that you claim proves that Pennz has seen those two posts.

Are you that fucking stupid? Look moron, I am trying to be civilized here. I warned you, but you don't give a shit. You knew this was coming.

You're playing ONCE AGAIN the "poor, innocent bystander" card, in which you "naively" "do not understand" what I mean and/or "nicely and innocently point out a flaw in my post", when you're just stirring the pot and hoping a huge flame war breaks.

You also know that I will ONCE AGAIN call you out and point your gayness in doing so, and also provide proof on how stupid your remarks were (which is now not necessary, given that wally did that).

When I wipe the floor with your fat, pimple infested ass, you will then reply that I am a psycho and that I am being such a mean bitch to someone "as nice" as you. Pennz will then join the flame war and BOOM! Pandora box is open once again.

I tried to keep that from happening, but you're just so damned annoying. Hit that ignore button already and stop pretending you're all cute 'cuz you're as irritating as you're ugly. Like I said before countless times, you're just a sad, ugly fat loser who feels worse than the rest of people.

You and pennz are the perfect symbiosis, you feel worse than everyone else and he feels better than everyone else. Like an AF'er said in the old AF, "of course, pennz and dunnas will always be pennz and dunnas".

And with this, you tried de-rail my real reply (the answer lies between what the left wing nut -les- says about unions, and what the right wing nut -your boyfriend pennz-says about "the market regulating wages") in order to protect the chav you have such a huge hard on for.

Fuck you dunnas, just be a man and hit the ignore button like you said you would.

OK, so what you're saying is that you weren't making any sense at all when you said there is proof that Pennz saw your posts, so instead you'll just cut and paste your usual insults into a post in the hope that i'll forget about it.

dunnas wrote:

thewalrus wrote:

dunnas wrote:Pennz replied to post Aris made that said "hahaha, the preemptive miller attack" which came straight after 2 of Rod's posts.

So no, it absolutely does not imply that he saw Rod's posts. You're the one that needs to give me a break I think. You did this to me the other day claiming that I start shit when you had actually completely missed Rod's post before mine. Can you please go back and look at the posts a little closer the next time you're thinking of posting something like that.

Rod gets attacked from all sides an awful lot. I was wrong that last time, I'll admit that. I'm not wrong now.

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with how it works when you're ignoring someone (I explained it clearly to ROD last week, but it seems he can grasp the simple concept).



You still see that the person has made a post, just not what's in it. That is why Pennz mentioning Rod's name is far from random. It is simple to view the post if you wish to though by clicking "display this post" but nothing about Pennz's post suggested that he had actually read them.

The_Edge wrote:

dunnas wrote:

The_Edge wrote:

dunnas wrote:

The_Edge wrote:

dunnas wrote:

The_Edge wrote:

thewalrus wrote:

Pennzoil GT-R wrote:

Aristotle wrote:hahaha

the preemptive miller attack.

fucking psycho rod

wonder if hes realised nobody reads his posts yet?

Good thing you dismissed his first post which was, really, correct.

I was also proving a theory.... without the second post, he'd claim he's got me on ignore because, there's no way he can respond back to it. Now I proved that 1) He did see it 2) He's got no answer.

Um, What? Nothing that Pennz did proves he saw either of your posts.

Dunnas... don't get me started. You know exactly what I would reply, I know exactly what you would reply to it, etc etc.

I don't want to get you started. I just can't follow the logic that you claim proves that Pennz has seen those two posts.

Are you that fucking stupid? Look moron, I am trying to be civilized here. I warned you, but you don't give a shit. You knew this was coming.

You're playing ONCE AGAIN the "poor, innocent bystander" card, in which you "naively" "do not understand" what I mean and/or "nicely and innocently point out a flaw in my post", when you're just stirring the pot and hoping a huge flame war breaks.

You also know that I will ONCE AGAIN call you out and point your gayness in doing so, and also provide proof on how stupid your remarks were (which is now not necessary, given that wally did that).

When I wipe the floor with your fat, pimple infested ass, you will then reply that I am a psycho and that I am being such a mean bitch to someone "as nice" as you. Pennz will then join the flame war and BOOM! Pandora box is open once again.

I tried to keep that from happening, but you're just so damned annoying. Hit that ignore button already and stop pretending you're all cute 'cuz you're as irritating as you're ugly. Like I said before countless times, you're just a sad, ugly fat loser who feels worse than the rest of people.

You and pennz are the perfect symbiosis, you feel worse than everyone else and he feels better than everyone else. Like an AF'er said in the old AF, "of course, pennz and dunnas will always be pennz and dunnas".

And with this, you tried de-rail my real reply (the answer lies between what the left wing nut -les- says about unions, and what the right wing nut -your boyfriend pennz-says about "the market regulating wages") in order to protect the chav you have such a huge hard on for.

Fuck you dunnas, just be a man and hit the ignore button like you said you would.

OK, so what you're saying is that you weren't making any sense at all when you said there is proof that Pennz saw your posts, so instead you'll just cut and paste your usual insults into a post in the hope that i'll forget about it.

No what I am saying is that you're a cockmonger and when I rape you in holes you never even know you had, plus some new ones, then you scream foul. Understood?

dunnas wrote:

The_Edge wrote:

dunnas wrote:

The_Edge wrote:

dunnas wrote:

The_Edge wrote:

dunnas wrote:

The_Edge wrote:

thewalrus wrote:

Pennzoil GT-R wrote:

Aristotle wrote:hahaha

the preemptive miller attack.

fucking psycho rod

wonder if hes realised nobody reads his posts yet?

Good thing you dismissed his first post which was, really, correct.

I was also proving a theory.... without the second post, he'd claim he's got me on ignore because, there's no way he can respond back to it. Now I proved that 1) He did see it 2) He's got no answer.

Um, What? Nothing that Pennz did proves he saw either of your posts.

Dunnas... don't get me started. You know exactly what I would reply, I know exactly what you would reply to it, etc etc.

I don't want to get you started. I just can't follow the logic that you claim proves that Pennz has seen those two posts.

Are you that fucking stupid? Look moron, I am trying to be civilized here. I warned you, but you don't give a shit. You knew this was coming.

You're playing ONCE AGAIN the "poor, innocent bystander" card, in which you "naively" "do not understand" what I mean and/or "nicely and innocently point out a flaw in my post", when you're just stirring the pot and hoping a huge flame war breaks.

You also know that I will ONCE AGAIN call you out and point your gayness in doing so, and also provide proof on how stupid your remarks were (which is now not necessary, given that wally did that).

When I wipe the floor with your fat, pimple infested ass, you will then reply that I am a psycho and that I am being such a mean bitch to someone "as nice" as you. Pennz will then join the flame war and BOOM! Pandora box is open once again.

I tried to keep that from happening, but you're just so damned annoying. Hit that ignore button already and stop pretending you're all cute 'cuz you're as irritating as you're ugly. Like I said before countless times, you're just a sad, ugly fat loser who feels worse than the rest of people.

You and pennz are the perfect symbiosis, you feel worse than everyone else and he feels better than everyone else. Like an AF'er said in the old AF, "of course, pennz and dunnas will always be pennz and dunnas".

And with this, you tried de-rail my real reply (the answer lies between what the left wing nut -les- says about unions, and what the right wing nut -your boyfriend pennz-says about "the market regulating wages") in order to protect the chav you have such a huge hard on for.

Fuck you dunnas, just be a man and hit the ignore button like you said you would.

OK, so what you're saying is that you weren't making any sense at all when you said there is proof that Pennz saw your posts, so instead you'll just cut and paste your usual insults into a post in the hope that i'll forget about it.

No what I am saying is that you're a cockmonger and when I rape you in holes you never even know you had, plus some new ones, then you scream foul. Understood?

So what you're saying is that when you get raped you just keep quiet and enjoy it?

The_Edge wrote:
You're damn right you fat cockmonger, I can grasp the simple concept. Going even further, I know you or pennz can just add to to ignore, post a screenshot, then go back to un-ignore:

And if pennz just saw my name, ON IGNORE, and decided to insult me randomly, then he'd be starting shit with me for no reason... exactly the topic over which you two happy testicles were bitching about not doing last flame war. Either way, you're making your significant other look worse.

The_Edge wrote:

If you think getting raped is tearing you a new asshole...

So now you know, next time we can avoid this shameful cycle on me schooling you and you playing dumb/victim and save time. Before posting any more garbage, remember that exactly this will happen again, and save your post. Don't worry, I will remind you again with a "don't get me started". I know you will, anyway. 'Cuz you keep coming back to the cock.

dunnas wrote:

The_Edge wrote:

If you think getting raped is tearing you a new asshole...

So now you know, next time we can avoid this shameful cycle on me schooling you and you playing dumb/victim and save time. Before posting any more garbage, remember that exactly this will happen again, and save your post. Don't worry, I will remind you again with a "don't get me started". I know you will, anyway. 'Cuz you keep coming back to the cock.

What on earth could you possibly think you've schooled me in?

I asked for an explanation of something and you did your usual rant about me playing all innocent, being a loser and loving Pennz.

Where does the schooling come into play?

dunnas wrote:If you want to continually waste your time writing multi-paragraph insult posts that never have anything new in them, it's no skin off my nose.

Nobody here is dumb enough to believe you've actually schooled me in anything or won an argument.

The_Edge wrote:

dunnas wrote:If you want to continually waste your time writing multi-paragraph insult posts that never have anything new in them, it's no skin off my nose.

Nobody here is dumb enough to believe you've actually schooled me in anything or won an argument.

defensive eh pal? (Notice how I never mentioned how others appreciated your schooling).

And what do your "pokes" at me have new? Nothing. It goes both ways boyo. And that is exactly my point.

Anyway, what you did was admirable. Pennz was in trouble, he could not answer my post (the part which I re-posted later in italics) so you threw yourself into this flame war and received a pounding just to de-rail that and save him. I am touched.

And for that I grant you a partial rest. No more replies for today. Your heroic self-sacrifice reached my heart. I am so touched that next time I will try to take skin off your flabby double chin rather than "skin off your nose" ( ).

Nite dunnas, thank you for a gorgeous time

Pennzoil GT-R wrote:pennz didnt answer your post because pennz doesnt see any point repeating himself. hence why you're on ignore and if you'd kindly fuck off people wouldnt keep quoting your drivel

Aristotle wrote:what pennz said. ^^

The_Edge wrote:
You're damn right you fat cockmonger, I can grasp the simple concept. Going even further, I know you or pennz can just add to to ignore, post a screenshot, then go back to un-ignore:

Aristotle wrote:a purely socialist economy doesn't work as efficiently as a capitalist economy. pennz cited some examples; there are countless studies dedicated to this.

all western governments are a blend of socialism and capitalism; however, the US was always the least socialist, which is why people come here to do business. side note: the reason china started changing so fast is that they significantly reduced their socialist/communist tendencies where the economy is concerned. once the doors were opened, business flooded in.

economic performance is always relative. if country 'X' has a socialist agenda, potential business 'Y' will just look for a country with a less socialist agenda until they find what they're looking for. that's why the US became such a destination for everything: we were the most friendly to business. same with wages. why are ipods made in china? because they'll build them for less money than americans will. why are hondas and toyotas better? because they'll build them for less than the americans will.

there will always somebody that will do something cheaper, and having unions in the 21st century does nothing but reduce a company's competitive advantage. it may sound ugly, but it is what it is.

thewalrus wrote:

Aristotle wrote:a purely socialist economy doesn't work as efficiently as a capitalist economy. pennz cited some examples; there are countless studies dedicated to this.

all western governments are a blend of socialism and capitalism; however, the US was always the least socialist, which is why people come here to do business. side note: the reason china started changing so fast is that they significantly reduced their socialist/communist tendencies where the economy is concerned. once the doors were opened, business flooded in.

economic performance is always relative. if country 'X' has a socialist agenda, potential business 'Y' will just look for a country with a less socialist agenda until they find what they're looking for. that's why the US became such a destination for everything: we were the most friendly to business. same with wages. why are ipods made in china? because they'll build them for less money than americans will. why are hondas and toyotas better? because they'll build them for less than the americans will.

there will always somebody that will do something cheaper, and having unions in the 21st century does nothing but reduce a company's competitive advantage. it may sound ugly, but it is what it is.

If you take it to the extremes in either direction - pure capitalism or pure communism you'll find substantial failures. Both might be called elegant theories that fail to take into account normal human failings. Right now, call me cynical, but I trust corporations about as far as I can throw them. Being fictitious legal entities it is, of course, impossible to throw corporations any distance at all. I also don't trust governments or unions, obviously, but I think a liberal democratic nation with a constrained and regulated free market economy is about as good as we can get.

big_jesus wrote:

Aristotle wrote:what pennz said. ^^

yep. it's really delusional to ignore the larger detriments that unions bring than the usefulness they've outlived.

look at our education system! teacher's unions are a very large part of why our education system is so staggeringly shitty.

Aristotle wrote:this thread sucks.

i started a new one in the other section.

also, the world is fucked. we have only two options at this point: stagnate for 5 or 6 years and pay down all the consumer debt/build savings, or hyperinflate our way out of this mess, via the money supply.

based on everything that's going on, it looks like we're going the hyperinflation route. if that happens, the US dollar should fall rapidly, and gold should rise rapidly. gold just started moving up again (nearly 10% in a few trading sessions), so now we watch the dollar, which many are saying is at unsustainable levels, based on the new money being printed for these 'bailouts'.

we're going to get double-fucked, you can count on it.

thewalrus wrote:I don't agree, entirely. I'll say this, I do agree that unions, as they stand right now, have too much power. But the same indictment could be leveled at Corporations, yet we don't contemplate getting rid of them. I for one wouldn't want to rely only on the justice system and the government to enforce workers rights and to that extent, as organizations that have the money, time and willingness to fight corporate greed and abuse Unions are great - and make no mistake about it, Corporations ARE motivated solely by profit. At the same time, you're right - looking at the Teachers union's here it's patently obvious that they are far too willing to go on strike. Especially when teachers here are already paid a very VERY handsome salary. Same thing with Nurses Unions. And, obviously, the UAW is a text book example of greed run amok.

I don't know what the proper course of action is. But it isn't as simple as just 'getting rid of unions', or 'maintaining the status quo'.

big_jesus wrote:

thewalrus wrote:I don't agree, entirely. I'll say this, I do agree that unions, as they stand right now, have too much power. But the same indictment could be leveled at Corporations, yet we don't contemplate getting rid of them. I for one wouldn't want to rely only on the justice system and the government to enforce workers rights and to that extent, as organizations that have the money, time and willingness to fight corporate greed and abuse Unions are great - and make no mistake about it, Corporations ARE motivated solely by profit. At the same time, you're right - looking at the Teachers union's here it's patently obvious that they are far too willing to go on strike. Especially when teachers here are already paid a very VERY handsome salary. Same thing with Nurses Unions. And, obviously, the UAW is a text book example of greed run amok.

I don't know what the proper course of action is. But it isn't as simple as just 'getting rid of unions', or 'maintaining the status quo'.

it's not just going on strike--teachers unions actually prevent good teachers who care about teaching from gaining a foothold in schools where they would be useful because the unionized shitty teachers who hate teaching and hate children have their little fiefdoms. the system is purely fucked.

I don't know what the proper course of action is. But it isn't as simple as just 'getting rid of unions', or 'maintaining the status quo'.

big_jesus wrote:

I don't know what the proper course of action is. But it isn't as simple as just 'getting rid of unions', or 'maintaining the status quo'.

i know what maintaining the status quo would lead to: stagnation or worse. busting the unions, however... that sounds intriguing. maybe something could come of that.

see the problem is that without uprooting the current unions, nothing will change with them they are little duchies, little feudal power systems, and the people who exist within them have the taste for wielding that power. they don't represent the worker. they represent the entity that is the union. true altruism sometimes has to be pragmatic, but the unions couldn't keep all of their footsoldiers if they truly acted in workers' best interests by maintaining a healthy relationship with the corporations they deal with and allowed the work force to thin or wages to drop when necessary. bloat is bloat.

big_jesus wrote:

Aristotle wrote:what pennz said. ^^

yep. it's really delusional to ignore the larger detriments that unions bring than the usefulness they've outlived.

look at our education system! teacher's unions are a very large part of why our education system is so staggeringly shitty.

big_jesus wrote:

The_Edge wrote:
You're damn right you fat cockmonger, I can grasp the simple concept. Going even further, I know you or pennz can just add to to ignore, post a screenshot, then go back to un-ignore:

dude. that is crazy talk.

anyway, this thread was interesting and now it's annoying. let's relax in here, everyone. please.

thewalrus wrote:I don't agree, entirely. I'll say this, I do agree that unions, as they stand right now, have too much power. But the same indictment could be leveled at Corporations, yet we don't contemplate getting rid of them. I for one wouldn't want to rely only on the justice system and the government to enforce workers rights and to that extent, as organizations that have the money, time and willingness to fight corporate greed and abuse Unions are great - and make no mistake about it, Corporations ARE motivated solely by profit. At the same time, you're right - looking at the Teachers union's here it's patently obvious that they are far too willing to go on strike. Especially when teachers here are already paid a very VERY handsome salary. Same thing with Nurses Unions. And, obviously, the UAW is a text book example of greed run amok.

I don't know what the proper course of action is. But it isn't as simple as just 'getting rid of unions', or 'maintaining the status quo'.

The_Edge wrote:

thewalrus wrote:I don't agree, entirely. I'll say this, I do agree that unions, as they stand right now, have too much power. But the same indictment could be leveled at Corporations, yet we don't contemplate getting rid of them. I for one wouldn't want to rely only on the justice system and the government to enforce workers rights and to that extent, as organizations that have the money, time and willingness to fight corporate greed and abuse Unions are great - and make no mistake about it, Corporations ARE motivated solely by profit. At the same time, you're right - looking at the Teachers union's here it's patently obvious that they are far too willing to go on strike. Especially when teachers here are already paid a very VERY handsome salary. Same thing with Nurses Unions. And, obviously, the UAW is a text book example of greed run amok.

I don't know what the proper course of action is. But it isn't as simple as just 'getting rid of unions', or 'maintaining the status quo'.

I agree completely.

thewalrus wrote:

The_Edge wrote:

thewalrus wrote:I don't agree, entirely. I'll say this, I do agree that unions, as they stand right now, have too much power. But the same indictment could be leveled at Corporations, yet we don't contemplate getting rid of them. I for one wouldn't want to rely only on the justice system and the government to enforce workers rights and to that extent, as organizations that have the money, time and willingness to fight corporate greed and abuse Unions are great - and make no mistake about it, Corporations ARE motivated solely by profit. At the same time, you're right - looking at the Teachers union's here it's patently obvious that they are far too willing to go on strike. Especially when teachers here are already paid a very VERY handsome salary. Same thing with Nurses Unions. And, obviously, the UAW is a text book example of greed run amok.

I don't know what the proper course of action is. But it isn't as simple as just 'getting rid of unions', or 'maintaining the status quo'.

I agree completely.

You know what it's like man. Once you've worked in the legal field for a bit you realize just how MUCH power corporations have, and how little power individuals have. Workers need someone to represent them - when you're up against multi million dollar corp with a team of lawyers and you're unemployed the justice system, as a matter of recourse, is not your friend.

The_Edge wrote:

big_jesus wrote:

Aristotle wrote:what pennz said. ^^

yep. it's really delusional to ignore the larger detriments that unions bring than the usefulness they've outlived.

look at our education system! teacher's unions are a very large part of why our education system is so staggeringly shitty.

Unions are bad. They're killing the auto industry.

Mexico used to have a HUGE tire industry. Now there's no tire industry. What happened? Unions!

Having said that, workers do need a protection. How? Well, in theory that is why governments should have qualified people, so they can think solutions for problems like this...

The_Edge wrote:We need a new kind of union with the following features:

Less power.

No say whatsoever regarding firing or not firing an employee. At most, they can recommend things. A worker shouldn't feel he can slack because the union backs him.

Less say regarding wages: It is impossible to have competitive corporations when you gotta pay higher wages than non-union companies (like ford vs toyota).