Darn that pesky human nature always getting in the way of perfectly good ideas.

It seems like the only dark trait we don’t care to suppress is avarice. Suppressing any other is good and necessary, but greed is holy and untouchable. Society would crumble if we dared to regulate greed the way we regulate lust. Isn’t that just terribly convenient for a culture ruled by the avaricious?

Christianity forbids usury!

The thing that scares me - really, truly scares me - is all of the kids who don't understand either classical economics or economic systems. The west presents the world to its citizens in a grotesque black-and-white way, capitalism vs. Stalinism, teaching kids those are the only two options that exist. That everything socialist or communist is the same and essentially evil. Well, capitalism is ****ing over all y'all, and change is coming to you sooner or later. An uneducated public that thinks Stalinism is the only alternative to capitalism is eventually going to take it.

Learn yourself a goddamn democratic socialism, son.

Sorry not sorry, I'm admittedly somewhat unchuffed to encounter this ancient argument that socialism can never work because of human nature in 2017 surrounded by so much quality evidence that capitalism does. Here, on the trashbag summit of decades of procyclical fiscal policy, overlooking the economic growth wasteland of a new gilded age.

Did you know there's a mathematical proof that capitalism's steady state is when the labor share converges to 0? Market economies have two steady states, 100% and 0%. 100% is socialism. Anything less than that - within the capitalism part of the spectrum - and the value inevitably goes ziiiiiiip right to 0. It's a black hole. Eternal, inevitable poverty for all who work capital instead of owning it. The only things that can stop this from happening are government (social democracy) or revolution (democratic socialism, or much worse). Choose wisely. Reject a formal proof at your peril.

Asked whether or not the report would upend Moore’s campaign, Ziegler predicted that Alabama voters would be angrier at the Washington Post for “desperately trying to get something negative” than Moore for his dalliances with teenage girls decades ago.

“He’s clean as a hound’s tooth,” Ziegler claimed, before relying on Scripture to defend Moore.

“Take the Bible. Zachariah and Elizabeth for instance. Zachariah was extremely old to marry Elizabeth and they became the parents of John the Baptist,” Ziegler said choosing his words carefully before invoking Christ. “Also take Joseph and Mary. Mary was a teenager and Joseph was an adult carpenter. They became parents of Jesus.”

“There’s just nothing immoral or illegal here,” Ziegler concluded. “Maybe just a little bit unusual.”

If I was Christian I would be pretty furious at those people for using the bible to defend sexual assault of a minor.

Today, the Judge Roy Moore Campaign for U.S. Senate issued a statement responding to yet another baseless political attack by the Washington Post, a paper that has endorsed Judge Moore's opponent. Moore campaign chair Bill Armistead released the following statement on Thursday afternoon:

"Judge Roy Moore has endured the most outlandish attacks on any candidate in the modern political arena, but this story in today's Washington Post alleging sexual impropriety takes the cake. National liberal organizations know their chosen candidate Doug Jones is in a death spiral, and this is their last ditch Hail Mary.

"The Washington Post has already endorsed the Judge's opponent, and for months, they have engaged in a systematic campaign to distort the truth about the Judge's record and career and derail his campaign. In fact, just two days ago, the Foundation for Moral Law sent a retraction demand to the Post for the false stories they wrote about the Judge's work and compensation. But apparently, there is no end to what the Post will allege.

"The Judge has been married to Kayla for nearly 33 years, has 4 children, and 5 grandchildren. He has been a candidate in four hotly-contested statewide political contests, twice as a gubernatorial candidate and twice as a candidate for chief justice. He has been a three-time candidate for local office, and he has been a national figure in two ground-breaking, judicial fights over religious liberty and traditional marriage. After over 40 years of public service, if any of these allegations were true, they would have been made public long before now.

"Judge Roy Moore is winning with a double-digit lead. So it is no surprise, with just over four weeks remaining, in a race for the U.S. Senate with national implications, that the Democratic Party and the country's most liberal newspaper would come up with a fabrication of this kind.

"This garbage is the very definition of fake news and intentional defamation."

Sorry not sorry, I'm admittedly somewhat unchuffed to encounter this ancient argument that socialism can never work because of human nature in 2017 surrounded by so much quality evidence that capitalism does. Here, on the trashbag summit of decades of procyclical fiscal policy, overlooking the economic growth wasteland of a new gilded age.

Did you know there's a mathematical proof that capitalism's steady state is when the labor share converges to 0? Market economies have two steady states, 100% and 0%. 100% is socialism. Anything less than that - within the capitalism part of the spectrum - and the value inevitably goes ziiiiiiip right to 0. It's a black hole. Eternal, inevitable poverty for all who work capital instead of owning it. The only things that can stop this from happening are government (social democracy) or revolution (democratic socialism, or much worse). Choose wisely. Reject a formal proof at your peril.

So apparently Roy Moore issued a statement about the allegations. What's weird is that nowhere in the statement does he directly deny them, lol

(Quoted for completeness, but I don't recommend reading it because it's painfully annoying to do so.)

I actually can't find where you linked that proof before. Can you link it again?

It's pretty much exactly what I expected from him. Still gross, but in a relatable way. Almost like he wrote the bit.

I relate with nonconsensually masturbating in front of people too!

I relate with nonconsensually masturbating in front of people too!

Apparently he always asked first. So I have to ask, at this point what exactly counts as consent? I understand there are abuse of authority issues here, too, but are we really okay saying that consent can be retroactively retracted as long as one party is sufficiently more successful than the other? What, exactly, are famous people supposed to do from now on to ensure their sexual activities are actually consensual?