4591
Add-Ons / Re: Player_K-ON_New: we back
« on: September 03, 2017, 06:23:56 AM »
i am dying.... of weeb sickness...
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
wrong. guys don't have thighsima rip out the upper part of your leg and show em to you since you think you dont have thighs
guys don't have thighs so it doesn't matter

i'd gay up this thread real fast so imma do you all a favor
or maybe im not doing you a favor by not posting them
[imsad]http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/masonry/001/246/209/53e.png[/img]


edit:You bailed when I edited, so I should have just made a new post. Read this zealot.
Zealot, you're seriously taking it too far. If maybe you would stop focusing on me and trying to throw tomatoes at me for doing something that you don't believe, then maybe I could explain myself fully. We can take it to PMs because I don't want a bunch of politically unstable handicaps shoveling stuff on me while i'm talking to you.
I can think of a few times on this forum that I've been undeniably wrong on something (without any ambiguity), but I either didn't respond or actually admitted I was wrong. Doubling down on that was a really bad idea but let's be real here--Ver isn't usually that bad. That was like a Magnus Opus of dumb but I think he usually seems pretty competent.You said i'm not usually that bad, and this is apart of this situation and is not a reflection of everything i've done in the past. You contradicted yourself.
Okay, nevermind. I take it back.
your argument was an article that didn't prove your point which, when confronted with this, you turned tail and decided you thought it was fake anyway. which doesn't make sense.i never turned tail, i just posted it. i never provided an argument against him, which i would do, and I would take things out of the article itself that i needed to highlight if i was truly trying to disprove him. what's your point anyways? i just posted an article which i had found by searching "is scandanavia socialist" and picked the one that i thought would confuse him the most/ the one that i thought was fake.
You could have just responded to him with thisthen wouldn't i be doing the exact same thing as them
you're handicappedno wonder beachbum calls you and mczealot handicaps - because you only ever respond to political stuff with your garbage and call people names when you can't think of an argument :|
The bulk of the article seems to suggest that Scandinavia isn't socalist because they aren't full-blown Communism dystopias. She literally says Sweden is no longer Socialist because they fixed a taxation system that literally taxed someone for more than 100% of their income. They also say that the 1% carry less weight in Scandinavia than they do in the US--but of course they would, because Scandinavia doesn't have as many extremely rich people. This is because they aren't individualist societies that view gathering extreme riches as an ideal life, and also because people who do think that way tend to leave the country for taxation purposes--which is fine. They also suggest that Scandinavians tend to hold more personal debt than Americans--but they also have many more fallback measures which would prevent them from bankruptcy in the case of losing a job or becoming injured. Half of all Americans are just $700 from bankruptcy, so their debts could be much more severe. They then suggest Swizterland is an extremely capitalist nation--citing claims such as the lack of a minimum wage, which ignores the powerful unions that generally require a minimum wage of $25 dollars an hour. This entire article is bunk, misrepresenting both capitalist and socialist countries.im pretty sure TheFedaralist is a joke site