Finally "no open carry" at some businesses

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

I guess everyone is supposed to just take your word for that, since you haven't bothered to offer anything to disprove it. Maybe they'll just ignore history, and actually believe you.

Well, since I actually lived in real Soviet Union, I know more about it than you can read in a book. But nevertheless one must be quite naive to assume that Soviet Union was exactly the same from 1917 to 1991 - in reality it went through significant changes in economy, ranging from World-time rationing to capitalist-style NEP, and basically covered everything in between.

Quote

Here's a reference for you, to refresh your memory:
...
Note how the farm markets were so overpriced that most people couldn't afford them, thereby leaving the state store their only practical option, where goods were often unavailable.

Now let's compare it with what you actually claimed:

Quote

Perhaps you would prefer the old Soviet-era stores where the government
owns them, and you have no other choice about where to shop. If you wanted a pork chop or a pound of butter, you had to go to the state store.

It is obvious that you already understood that your claim about "no other choices" was false, and now trying to backpedal out of it by bringing in bogus claims (which are not even supported by your publication).

The reality was that while farmer markets were indeed more expensive (3x-10x comparing to state shops), the food market prices were not regulated. The price for a food in state shops was fixed on a very low level (like 10c per pound of meat), but the quality of this meat (or butter) was quite shitty. Therefore everyone who had some money was shopping for food on farmer markets, and paid higher prices for a much better meat.

Another option to get stuff was barter - it was a a significant part of the economy. There were also illegal private stores (run as state stores but selling non-state provided goods for non-approved prices). There one could buy virtually anything. During my childhood (late 70s) such stores were getting legalized (they were called "cooperative stores"), and provided an important opportunities actually competing with farm markets.

So, as I said, it was yet another your lie.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

I would say grouping people by "we want laws established to secure our pet peeves" vs "leave me alone" is probably a better way to divide the political spectrum

Depending on the issue you'd see different people on different sides of a spectrum. Those conservatives who have "leave me alone" attitude towards guns are going to extreme "we want laws established to secure our pet peeves" when gays are asking fro the same "leave me alone" for marriage cases, or when pro-choice people asking for "leave me alone" in abortion cases.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

one must be quite naive to assume that Soviet Union was exactly the same from 1917 to 1991

I made no such assumption. Trying to put words in my mouth again?

Quote

It is obvious that you already understood that your claim about "no other choices" was false, and now trying to backpedal out of it by bringing in bogus claims

Negative. I spoke originally in the figurative sense. Because the common folks couldn't afford the farm market goods, they had no other choice but to buy their products at the state stores. I.E. "they had no other choice."

Of course, you would take the wording literally, because you love to call other people liars, in order to divert attention away from your own transgressions in that regard.

Quote

it was yet another your lie.

You seem to have trouble distinguishing between different interpretations of things, and outright intentional lies. The things you claimed I had said, were outright intentional fabrications. That's far worse then simply disagreeing on how to interpret the availability of groceries to the common citizens of Russia. And just because you disagree with an interpretation, does not mean that your opponent is lying. (See again my above comment about 'diversion'.)

But thank you for your personal information, which supports my version of how food was sold in the old Soviet days to the citizenry.

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

I made no such assumption. Trying to put words in my mouth again?

Saying something like "old Soviet-era stores where the government owns them" without specifying time period clearly states that a person who said that thought that the store ownership was the same any time during Soviet era - i.e. does not even know the basics and assumes things didn't change. This was exactly what you did.

Quote

Negative. I spoke originally in the figurative sense. Because the common folks couldn't afford the farm market goods, they had no other choice but to buy their products at the state stores. I.E. "they had no other choice."

A bold part is an obvious lie and shows that you have no idea how farm markets worked in Soviet Union. The common folks WERE able to afford the farm market goods - in fact in most places the farm markets were the ONLY place where one could buy something they can actually eat (this was especially the case with things like dill and spring onions). A farmer market was also the place where the goods were resold - for example, someone went to Siberia and brought back several cans of caviar. The only place they could legally resell it was a farm market (coop stores after 70s). Most of the markets had also non-food sections where people were selling domestic animals and regular homemade goods (or used stuff). In the city I lived during my childhood there were three markets in a walking distance around my house (20 min walk max), and they were only closed on Monday, working every day from 7am to 5-8pm. Most of the food we ate indeed came from markets (and my family was really poor).

Quote

Of course, you would take the wording literally, because you love to call other people liars

First, the bold part is yet another LIE from you. I did not call you a liar. I said what you claimed was a lie, as it was.

Second, since you yourself like to take the wording literally - because you love to call other people sniveling little lying cowards - you should expect the same from others as well. As the call, so the echo.

Quote

You seem to have trouble distinguishing between different interpretations of things, and outright intentional lies.

No, I do not. It was pretty obvious that you said something which was not true (and which would be obvious to anyone who visited any ex-USSR country), and which even your own source confirmed not to be true. And now in your typical manner trying to find excuses and blame others for what you wrote.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[billvon 2,450]

Please stick to the topic and avoid the personal comments. (both of you)

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Depending on the issue you'd see different people on different sides of a spectrum.

Whoa.

--Keanu Reeves is impressed by this deep thought.

[georgerussia 0]

A police officer shot by a burglar from a stolen gun

Yet another "responsible gun owner" left their gun where a burglar can easily pick it up, which then was used to shot a police officer who caught him.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[georgerussia 0]

And More responsible gun owners. Their parents must be NRA members letting the kids to play with a loaded gun.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[rhaig 0]

Quote

Please stick to the topic

thread drift is officially banned! :)

--
Rob

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

I would say grouping people by "we want laws established to secure our pet peeves" vs "leave me alone" is probably a better way to divide the political spectrum

Depending on the issue you'd see different people on different sides of a spectrum. Those conservatives who have "leave me alone" attitude towards guns are going to extreme "we want laws established to secure our pet peeves" when gays are asking fro the same "leave me alone" for marriage cases, or when pro-choice people asking for "leave me alone" in abortion cases.

Pretty heavy concept - "people have different opinions" I'm floored by the depth of discourse now and need to take a few philosophy courses to keep up.

OK, you just tried and failed to repeat back to me the same statement, but still managed to stereotype into a political bias with your "conservatives" in the post - thus completely missing the point

Even an attempt to agree with the above you still can't see the irony in your partisan posting

or do you not get that most people want to be left alone by the government and prefer others to be left alone by the gov as well - partisan hacks from both camps are the real enemy - your liberal/conservative labels don't really matter because they don't mean anything other than which social crowd individuals want to label themselves

I bet the majority of opinions on every single individual issue here aligns with "get the gov out of my hair" (with a couple of ridiculous individuals excepted, but they likely pose here as nutbag morons for the fun of it).

Just because the mix is different from topic to topic and person to person, most people want to just live their lives, and let others live theirs. Strong political parties are antithetical to this as their role is the exercise of power/control - not protecting the individual. So rooting for one party or the other is a nice piece of pointless busy work and distracts the weak minded from what's really important

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

I bet the majority of opinions on every single individual issue here aligns with "get the gov out of my hair" (with a couple of ridiculous individuals excepted, but they likely pose here as nutbag morons for the fun of it).

And that is where we disagree. Maybe some so-called libertarians say they do, but in reality none of them would survive in a society with no government regulations at all.

This is pretty much the same with taxes or government increase - everyone considers taxing or increasing the government is good for "good cause", but if it is done for something they do not like - it is obviously bad.

Quote

Just because the mix is different from topic to topic and person to person, most people want to just live their lives, and let others live theirs. Strong political parties are antithetical to this as their role is the exercise of power/control - not protecting the individual.

And again I disagree. The people desire for "living their lives and letting others living their lives" often gets directly in conflict when others do not want to live their lives the way you would like them to. Are you ok with your neighbor having slaves, or maybe just driving drunk if he doesn't object you have slaves and drive drunk too?

This is where political parties grow up from - the desires of groups of people to change the rules everyone lives by. It is not parties who cause those desires.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[rhaig 0]

Quote

Maybe some so-called libertarians say they do, but in reality none of them would survive in a society with no government regulations at all.

libertarians are not anarchists.

--
Rob

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Why do you continue to insist Libertarians want NO government? Libertarians want small government, not NO government. Look everywhere around you, all I see if big fat expensive bureaucracies with lazy entitled unionized government civil servants. Cut the fat I say. Governments need to go on a diet.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Maybe some so-called libertarians say they do, but in reality none of them would survive in a society with no government regulations at all.

You obviously don't understand libertarian philosophy. It's not about NO government.
Here's a primer for you, to educate yourself: http://www.lp.org/platform

[rwieder 0]

You're freaked out IMHO.

-Richard-
"You're Holding The Rope And I'm Taking The Fall"

[billvon 2,450]

(answering several similar posts here)

>libertarians are not anarchists.

>Why do you continue to insist Libertarians want NO government?

>It's not about NO government.

He didn't say "no government." He said "no government regulation" and that's a pretty accurate summary of US Libertarian philosophy.

Some quotes from the US Libertarian Party:

"The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power."

"We support full freedom of expression and oppose government censorship, regulation or control of communications media and technology."

"We oppose all government control of energy pricing, allocation, and production."

"We oppose all controls on wages, prices, rents, profits, production, and interest rates. We advocate the repeal of all laws banning or restricting the advertising of prices, products, or services."

"All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society."

Position statement: "Pollution of other people’s property is a violation of individual rights. Strict liability, not arbitrary government standards, should regulate pollution. We demand the abolition of the Environmental Protection Agency."

In general, libertarians advocate abolition of governmental regulations and instead prefer to rely on the courts to deal with problems after the fact.

[quade 3]

Quote

Quote

Maybe some so-called libertarians say they do, but in reality none of them would survive in a society with no government regulations at all.

libertarians are not anarchists.

You're right.

Libertarians are anarchists with money.






(not actually my joke)

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Why do you continue to insist Libertarians want NO government? Libertarians want small government, not NO government.

I want a small government too. Do you agree that it makes sense to have only one government (Fed) instead of 51 plus zillion of local governments? Do your libertarians agree with that? This would indeed make the overall government significantly smaller.

Then, should we get rid of Senate and Congress? Would make it even smaller! Have one Justice in Supreme Court, or maybe no SC at all?

Saying "we want a small government" without specifics is kinda saying nothing. Devil is in details.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Maybe some so-called libertarians say they do, but in reality none of them would survive in a society with no government regulations at all.

libertarians are not anarchists.

Nor are civil libertarians.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I want a small government too.

No, you don't. And your postings constantly show this.

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Quote

Maybe some so-called libertarians say they do, but in reality none of them would survive in a society with no government regulations at all.

You obviously don't understand libertarian philosophy. It's not about NO government.

You obviously didn't read what I wrote - AGAIN.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

No, you don't.

Yes, I do. I just disagree with you what parts of the government we should cut.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

No, you don't.

Yes, I do. I just disagree with you what parts of the government we should cut.

Perhaps.

I'm not the one who wants to create a secret police apparatus from the homeland where citizens can rat each other out about gun ownership.

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

I'm not the one who wants to create a secret police apparatus from the homeland where citizens can rat each other out about gun ownership.

Me neither, so I have no idea what are you talking about.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[rhaig 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Maybe some so-called libertarians say they do, but in reality none of them would survive in a society with no government regulations at all.

libertarians are not anarchists.

Nor are civil libertarians.

nor are librarians

--
Rob