Unintended Consequences: Swiss Edition

[Steve Ballmer]

These kinds of projects usually take years to make their money back. There is no quickly. Do the math.

[Steve Ballmer]

With all due respect Steve, you're talking utter bollocks. Why should there be any bloodshed? The only answer to that is that your side will start a fight. So don't give us the holier-than-thou.

As for 'not producing anything', wtf are you on about? I have explained that we would be producing a lot more, although it's not just a matter of quantity, it's more a question of producing for need rather than profit.

This is entirely dishonest. It's like saying "it's her fault I raped her, because she didn't consent. ALL SHE HAD TO DO WAS CONSENT". You talk about mass confiscation—it's perhaps a little less sexual, but it's certainly no better. One could argue it's far more destructive.

And yes, you mentioned that you'd be producing, but since the examples you've given have all involved confiscation, I'm lead to believe you're confusing "producing" and "reallocating". Which is an easy mistake to make, when you're a socialist.

[Steve Ballmer]

No violence would be started by the socialists.

We will take their wealth off them.

In other news, A = Non-A

The dishonesty runs deep in this one...

[Steve Ballmer]

If the government passes legislation re-nationalising energy, where exactly is the violence in that process of taking the companies into public ownership?

The same as here:

We could knock down the big mansions owned by rich people

But please, do keep posting. The more you say, the more mentally incompetent and morally bankrupt you appear.

[Steve Ballmer]

So you're saying that knocking down other people's houses is not an act of violence?

[Steve Ballmer]

The worst mistake socialists tend to make is to read Marx and then think that they're learned in economics. At best they're entertained, though I wouldn't vouch for the character of a man who could find entertaining such poorly written drivel.



Soup soup soup soup soup soup bacon.

[Steve Ballmer]

[H20nly]

all rich folk are bad M'Kay.

they don't deserve homes becuase they have more money than us. M'Kay?

[Steve Ballmer]

And how is the finance industry doing?

[Steve Ballmer]

So you're saying that knocking down other people's houses is not an act of violence?

Well, we might use them as centres or whatever. It's net exactly likely that one individual would live in them in a socialist society is it?

Governments knock down houses all the time anyway, duh.

So you do admit your revolution will be violent. Glad we cleared that up.

Duh.

[Steve Ballmer]

remember that in Marx's day young children slaved away in factories and he was fighting against that kind of thing.

Nope, Marx specifically called for the "combination of education with industrial production."

Marx and Jenny were very poor, as was to be expected of a political refugee couple in the mid 1800s. They often had to move from country to country.

Because Marx kept on trying to steal people's houses. NOT responsible parenting.

[Steve Ballmer]

And how is the finance industry doing?

Apparently they started reading Marx after the crash

"Sales of Marx's Capital are at an all-time high"


Wednesday 4 March 2009
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/com ... 36864.html

I also hear people often convert to religion on their death-beds.

This article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4361733.stm) says that Mein Kampf is a best seller in Turkey. I guess this, by your logic, must also validate Hitler's views.

[scott nathaniel]

Because Marx kept on trying to steal people's houses.

Cut Marx some slack! There were no nearby teepees---to steal.

[Steve Ballmer]

At first he wanted to own a house, but property is theft, so he had to steal one instead.

Because A=!A

[scott nathaniel]

At first he wanted to own a house, but property is theft, so he had to steal one instead.

Because A=!A

And your powder blue Sperry topsiders are a justified purchase because:

child labour = !child labour