What are social justice warriors losing their shit about today?

[136 or 142]

What's the point?  You'll just mindlessly chant #1 (fake news!)


If you're interested, you can look it up yourself by checking out the Globe and Mail articles or other reputable Canadian news sources.  Again, it's not my job to look things up for you, especially when I already know you'll dismiss the truth as lies.

How do I know these articles are the truth?  Because they quote from source documents including from the two Canadian Supreme Court rulings on this matter.

[Unquenchable Angst]

 I find Trump to be some relief from the last 8 years  of Bolshevik analingus PC administration or the previous Neo CONvict  War on Peace or the previous 8 of Clinton serial wetworks. Outside of the  Bolshevik Monkies slinging their feces everyday through their Globalist whore newzpeakers , their cadres of mindless Soros' temporary employees, and those working towards a "Georgia Guidstones" future. The watch is still on.All the shit is a diversion. It is a divide and conquer tactic. You have fallen into the "Plan".
Wake up!

[136 or 142]

I find Trump to be some relief from the last 8 years  of Bolshevik analingus PC administration or the previous Neo CONvict  War on Peace or the previous 8 of Clinton serial wetworks. Outside of the  Bolshevik Monkies slinging their feces everyday through their Globalist whore newzpeakers , their cadres of mindless Soros' temporary employees, and those working towards a "Georgia Guidstones" future. The watch is still on.All the shit is a diversion. It is a divide and conquer tactic. You have fallen into the "Plan".
Wake up!

Donald J Trump is the #1 American oligarch.

[Dr. MD MD]

Donald J Trump is the #1 American oligarch.

See, you can't even be accurate about that. It's Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos. You just make up facts to support your ludicrous positions. 

[136 or 142]

See, you can't even be accurate about that. It's Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos. You just make up facts to support your ludicrous positions. 

Wealth AND power determine to me who the leading oligarch is.  Trump is an oligarch and he is the President, to me, that places him above them by a mile.  By definition, an oligarch is somebody who engages in rent seeking (look it up) to gain wealth.  Whether Gates did that is debatable, but, while Bezos is known to treat his workers horribly, I'm not aware of him engaging in rent seeking.  Bezos strikes me as a genuine capitalist and entrepeneur who had an idea that was successful and became very wealthy over it.  I personally consider that something positive though obviously his treatment of his workers places a considerable damper on that.

[Dr. MD MD]

Wealth AND power determine to me who the leading oligarch is.  Trump is an oligarch and he is the President, to me, that places him above them by a mile.  By definition, an oligarch is somebody who engages in rent seeking (look it up) to gain wealth.  Whether Gates did that is debatable, but, while Bezos is known to treat his workers horribly, I'm not aware of him engaging in rent seeking.

It's a good thing most of us aren't going by how you determine the definitions of things.  :

[136 or 142]

It's a good thing most of us aren't going by how you determine the definitions of things.  :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_oligarch

During the 1990s, once Boris Yeltsin (President of Russia from 1991) took office, the oligarchs emerged as well-connected entrepreneurs who started from nearly nothing and became rich through participation in the market via connections to the corrupt, but elected, government of Russia during the state's transition to a market-based economy.

[ZaZa]

See, you can't even be accurate about that. It's Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos. You just make up facts to support your ludicrous positions. 

I think that 136/142 is jealous that America has man with solid balls like TRUMP as a President,
and his Canada has faggot for a Prime Minister who's father was Fidel Castro and mother a slot fucking Rolling Stones band members in front of her husband Pierre T.

[136 or 142]

I think that 136/142 is jealous that America has man with solid balls like TRUMP as a President,

Close, Donald J Trump is a dick.

[ZaZa]

Close, Donald J Trump is a dick.

but you Prime Minister is an open faggot frequenting Pride Parades. Go and suck him off you creep. 

[136 or 142]

but you Prime Minister is an open faggot frequenting Pride Parades. Go and suck him off you creep.

Oh, homosexuals trigger you!  Such a snowflake.

[Dr. MD MD]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_oligarch

During the 1990s, once Boris Yeltsin (President of Russia from 1991) took office, the oligarchs emerged as well-connected entrepreneurs who started from nearly nothing and became rich through participation in the market via connections to the corrupt, but elected, government of Russia during the state's transition to a market-based economy.

Anyone can look up the meaning of the word oligarch. It's distinguishable from Russian oligarch. You're such a head case!  :

[136 or 142]

Anyone can look up the meaning of the word oligarch. It's distinguishable from Russian oligarch. You're such a head case!  :

Technically oligarchs are political leaders, so neither Bezos nor Gates are oligarchs.  Clearly we were both using the term in the way that it's been re-defined by Russia.

ol·i·garch
ˈäləˌɡärk/Submit
noun
1.
a ruler in an oligarchy.
2.
(especially in Russia) a very rich business leader with a great deal of political influence.

I thought my use of the phrase 'American oligarch' made it clear that I was comparing the United States especially under Trump to the situation of the Russian oligarchs.

Maybe I'm not doing a good enough job of communicating with you or maybe you have a problem of being too dense.  The case of loony libertarian not meaning to imply that I was claiming 'all libertarians are loony' suggests the problem is with you as I think most people understand what an adjective does.

[Dr. MD MD]

Technically oligarchs are political leaders, so neither Bezos nor Gates are oligarchs.  Clearly we were both using the term in the way that it's been re-defined by Russia.

ol·i·garch
ˈäləˌɡärk/Submit
noun
1.
a ruler in an oligarchy.
2.
(especially in Russia) a very rich business leader with a great deal of political influence.

I thought my use of the phrase 'American oligarch' made it clear that I was comparing the United States especially under Trump to the situation of the Russian oligarchs.

Maybe I'm not doing a good enough job of communicating with you or maybe you have a problem of being too dense.  The case of loony libertarian not meaning to imply that I was claiming 'all libertarians are loony' suggests the problem is with you as I think most people understand what an adjective does.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligarchy

Have at it! It goes all the way back to ancient Greece but you keep trying to fleece people with "the way you determine things to be."  :

[136 or 142]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligarchy

Have at it! It goes all the way back to ancient Greece but you keep trying to fleece people with "the way you determine things to be."  :

I'm not sure what you're looking at there:

Oligarchy (from Greek ὀλιγαρχία (oligarkhía); from ὀλίγος (olígos), meaning 'few', and ἄρχω (arkho), meaning 'to rule or to command')[1][2][3] is a form of power structure in which power rests with a small number of people.

Do you believe that any power rests with Jeff Bezos?  He has power as a businessman through Amazon but he operates in an open and competitive environment, is subject to (some) regulation and doesn't seem to use his influence to game the rules in his favor (unlike the Koch brothers for instance.)  His ownership of the Washington Post is interesting, but under President Ill Douche, it means he has even less power or influence.

I think you are playing games with me here and aren't engaging in good faith.  If you want to continue this discussion, give me your definition of 'oligarch' and explain why you think Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates are oligarchs under your definition.  If you just say 'the definition of oligarch is on the wiki site, then I know you're just playing games, because neither of them (Gates is arguable) are oligarchs under the standard definition.

[Dr. MD MD]

I'm not sure what you're looking at there:

Oligarchy (from Greek ὀλιγαρχία (oligarkhía); from ὀλίγος (olígos), meaning 'few', and ἄρχω (arkho), meaning 'to rule or to command')[1][2][3] is a form of power structure in which power rests with a small number of people.

Do you believe that any political power rests with Jeff Bezos?

Yes, of course, you fucking idiot. He's one of the richest men in the world, he owns an online order business that's eating up most other business and owns a major newspaper. Don't even try anymore. You just don't have the brainpower to even figure out common definitions without lots of help.  :

[136 or 142]

Yes, of course, you fucking idiot. He's one of the richest men in the world, he owns an online order business that's eating up most other business and owns a major newspaper. Don't even try anymore. You just don't have the brainpower to even figure out common definitions without lots of help.  :

OK, you clearly don't know what an oligarch is then.  Being wealthy by itself does not make a person an oligarch (and not even being extremely wealthy).  By definition a wealthy person has to use their wealth to influence politics in a way that benefits themselves personally or in a way that gives them significant influence relative to the common person.

The problem is, you are the fucking idiot.  Let's me just extend to you the same deal I made with PB.  You ignore my posts and I'll ignore your posts.  I can't be bothered with you anymore.

[Dr. MD MD]

OK, you clearly don't know what an oligarch is then.  Being wealthy by itself does not make a person an oligarch (and not even being extremely wealthy).  By definition a wealthy person has to use their wealth to influence politics in a way that benefits themselves personally or in a way that gives them significant influence relative to the common person.

The problem is, you are the fucking idiot.  Let's me just extend to you the same deal I made with PB.  You ignore my posts and I'll ignore your posts.  I can't be bothered with you anymore.

I didn't say it did. I just dropped an article that informs people that it has nothing to do with Russia, as you were suggesting. You clearly have no education but are just a know nothing cunt who can cut and paste. If you're such a snowflake that you don't want critical people responding to your posts here then just don't post. Head back to the funny farm for a much needed rest. 

[136 or 142]

I didn't say it did. I just dropped an article that informs people that it has nothing to do with Russia, as you were suggesting. You clearly have no education but are just a know nothing cunt who can cut and paste. If you're such a snowflake that you don't want critical people responding to your posts here then just don't post. Head back to the funny farm for a much needed rest. 

I have no problem with criticisms of my posts if they are in good faith.  It's become extremely obvious to me though that you're just trolling me.

Just to make it clear: I didn't write 'oligarch', I wrote 'American oligarch.'  On the one hand you criticize me for just cutting and pasting, on the other hand, here you seem to me criticizing me for using a term that doesn't exist.  Either I'm not capable of having an original thought, or my original thought is too original.  These replies from you are clearly trolling.

If my term came from nowhere, I can understand you criticizing:  'that's meaningless so criticizing Trump as the #1 American oligarch has no meaning"  However, as I wrote previously, I thought it was an obvious illusion to "Russian oligarch."

Having looked up 'American oligarch' just now though, it seems I didn't coin the phrase:  http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/donald-trump-american-oligarch

I think it's pretty reasonable to not expect me to engage with a troll.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's hard to come up with an original phrase.  I think I did coin a phrase for this situation though: "There is nothing new under the sun." Has anybody ever heard that before?

[Dr. MD MD]

I have no problem with criticisms of my posts if they are in good faith.  It's become extremely obvious to me though that you're just trolling me.

Just to make it clear: I didn't write 'oligarch', I wrote 'American oligarch.'  On the one hand you criticize me for just cutting and pasting, on the other hand, here you seem to me criticizing me for using a term that doesn't exist.  Either I'm not capable of having an original thought, or my original thought is too original.  These replies from you are clearly trolling.

Having looked up 'American oligarch' just now though, it seems I didn't coin the phrase:  http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/donald-trump-american-oligarch

I think it's pretty reasonable to not expect me to engage with a troll.

I get it. People can communicate with you as long as they agree to your "definitions." No one, certainly not me, has ever accused you of being "too original." I'm pretty sure about that. 

[136 or 142]

I get it. People can communicate with you as long as they agree to your "definitions." No one, certainly not me, has ever accused you of being "too original." I'm pretty sure about that. 

Not so, but under the common definition of oligarch, Jeff Bezos and (probably) Bill Gates weren't oligarchs either.  The problem is, you don't understand either the original definition or the common definition which I've since given you: for a wealthy person it's: using that wealth to influence policy that either benefits them personally or gives them undue influence over general policy relative to the general population.  The original definition of oligarchs only referred to political leaders, either elected or as civil servants in the 'deep state.'

I'm not unaware that the new Forbes issue (I think it was Forbes) just out today named Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates as the two richest people in America.  I have no doubt that's why you named those two.

[Dr. MD MD]

Not so, but under the common definition of oligarch, Jeff Bezos and (probably) Bill Gates weren't oligarchs either.  The problem is, you don't understand either the original definition or the common definition which I've since given you: for a wealthy person it's: using that wealth to influence policy that either benefits them personally or gives them undue influence over general policy relative to the general population.  The original definition of oligarchs only referred to political leaders, either elected or as civil servants in the 'deep state.'

I'm not unaware that the new Forbes issue (I think it was Forbes) just out today named Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates as the two richest people in America.  I have no doubt that's why you named those two.

No, the problem is you think you're actually scoring points with your cute little semantic argument but everyone understands that with the amount of wealth and power they have they are by definition political.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligarchy
"is a form of power structure in which power rests with a small number of people. These people might be distinguished by nobility, wealth, family ties, education or corporate, religious or military control."

Time to get real, numbers. 

[136 or 142]

No, the problem is you think you're actually scoring points with your cute little semantic argument but everyone understands that with the amount of wealth and power they have they are by definition political.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligarchy
"is a form of power structure in which power rests with a small number of people. These people might be distinguished by nobility, wealth, family ties, education or corporate, religious or military control."

Time to get real, numbers. 

How has Bezos used his wealth to access power?

[Dr. MD MD]

How has Bezos used his wealth to access power?

He turned you into an idiot. Your posts are proof of that. 

[136 or 142]

He turned you into an idiot. Your posts are proof of that. 

I have no power.

This does raise an interesting point though. It does seem your unhappy with the increasing concentration of wealth and the increasing income inequality in the United States.  Do you honestly believe that President Trump really wants to do anything to address that? 

It's pretty obvious to me and to anybody with a brain that the only interest he has is that he wants to increase his (and his families) share of that wealth.

[Dr. MD MD]

I have no power.

Obviously and no education or intelligence either.

[136 or 142]

Obviously and no education or intelligence either.

You're projecting.

[Dr. MD MD]

I'm devastated. 

[136 or 142]

I'm devastated. 

Such a shame.

[paladin1991]

I think that 136/142 is jealous that America has man with solid balls like TRUMP as a President,
and his Canada has faggot for a Prime Minister who's father was Fidel Castro and mother a slot fucking Rolling Stones band members in front of her husband Pierre T.

Well, Maggs always was a fun date.