Beefy's Corner - The Off-Topic Chat Thread

Apparently Aubameyang is quicker than Usain Bolt over 30m. http://www.goal.com/en-gb/news/3275/bundesliga/2013/07/13/4114198/aubameyang-quicker-than-usain-bolt

Mad.

 

In fact??????

What about Cuba, USSR, east Germany, Albania, Angola, North Korea, china, god what do they teach you in schools nowadays?

 

In schools they teach you what communism actually is, and that is not what any of those countries have or have had. Do any of those countries have any sort of income equality? No, no they do not. They have had fascist dictatorships posing as socialist or communist regimes.

Look up the definition of communism and show me how it comes close to what any of those countries have.

 

What a crock of shiete, Lenin was just posing as a commie. Laughable ....

 

If you knew the first thing about Lenin, you'd know he was genuinely attempting to implement communism as per the Communist Manifesto, but died before the transitional period was complete. Stalin then did away with the Bolsheviks one by one and turned the country towards fascism, under the pretence of communism. Easy stuff mate.

 

Some of the spotty yoof on here might not be able to, but I can see right through your pretentious horseshiete. Your claim of no communist state is just laughable. Try telling a Cuban or an Albanian, or maybe an east German. Stick to talking about chicks playing football.

 

Well I'm the one giving you facts. I don't see you giving me any. You can't even spell "****e". Justify your stupid opinions with facts or they're nothing more than the usual bullshit you come out with.

 

Cuba et al are communist in name only.

 

Bolt is quite a slow starter, his legs are too long. I'd imagine a lot of the professional sprinters are faster than him over that short distance.

 

True, but it's still pretty impressive for someone who's not even a sprinter. Apparently Henrikh Mkhitaryan actually is a sprinter, so perhaps he's faster than Bolt over a short distance as well. Shame we won't get to see either in the EPL next season, but Dortmund have a seriously pacey team on their hands.

 

It is true to say that none of these Countries practice(d) Marxist Communism in its purest form although the term 'Communism' has been applied to the ruling bodies of them all...It's a matter of semantics really.

 

For the same reason that it's true to say that a purely libertarian governing ethic has never and will never be employed, nor a truly free market created; both require conditions for implementation and maintenance that are impossible in any real world situation, at least with a governed unit larger than a ten-person commune.

 

Whether a pure form of communism, such as what was described in the Communist Manifesto, is possible is a matter of debate. It would at least be very, very difficult, but I don't think you can go as far as to call it impossible. It would certainly take what I consider to be unrealistic levels of co-operation and patience.

Wouldn't pure libertarianism basically just be like a return to the Stone Age, in theory? Extend the principles of libertarianism to their most extreme, and you've got no government, no law and essentially unlimited freedom. You could say we've already had that.

 

Free riders; to presume a functioning communist society is to either presume that you can get the totality of the population to commit labour in equal proportions, or to devise a system that accurately measure the value of all labour across all fields of work that essentially adjusts in real-time, and is impervious to measures like inflation, change in the intensiveness of industry/scarcity, etc, thus providing a true 'labour time' measure of worth. It's a very good critical theory, but it struggles with reality.

And even the Stone Age wouldn't be a perfect libertarian utopia, simply because it lacked a means save by force to adjudicate property ownership, which is really the only thing that they believe in. What's the means to adjudicate that? None of them seem to have a defined idea, though the concept of privately-run but entirely even-handed court systems has to be the most hilariously naive.

 

Wow, George Zimmerman was just found not guilty. Obviously this has led to legal masterminds on Twitter claiming how it's wrong.

 

Morally wrong, definitely. Wrong until their thoroughly ******ed laws? Probably not.

 

Well, we all wish the law was more based on morals. Still, I'd not want to live the life he'll have from here on out.

 

Don't worry about him, he's a conservative hero somehow. He'll be well-compensated.

 

So, I basically haven't followed this case at all. He shot an unarmed man? What grounds did they base the verdict on?

 

I think (and I've not followed it too closely), he saw the victim walking the streets, who was a young black dude doing nothing - Zimmerman thought he was up to trouble because he's black, got out his car and followed him for a bit, they got in a fight and Zimmerman shot him, so the defence argued self defence.