This is one the best lines ever uttered in British Comedy. Bloody brilliant.

Couldn't think of a good name so I guess this is it n+jkkkeerrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr44=tea rewritten the wedding day in that our quality ofrr

Very close call on the offside but Marx will never win the argument as the proletariat he represents has been subjugated by materialism, the ruling elite have mastered the art of using his own arguments against him, and the ref had a better angle on the ball, so there you go.

We just need some damage control. *My crazy russian channel* :D

Couldn't think of a good name so I guess this is it lmfao !!!! Best part

That part literally made me laugh out loud

One from column A, one from column B, egg roll and wonton soup

I almost spit my coffee at that part, lol.

Can anybody explain?

Andrej Kocevski You would expect a rebuttal from Confucious. Instead, he's not having it, and in pure broken English, he just says, "Name go in book."

He was right, that's the cherry on top of the cake

Love the way Marx is the only philosopher paying attention to reality

Yes but what's so lolig about that hm?

The Salty Spittoon Except communism isn't based in reality.

Alex P Communism isn't completely identical to socialism.

They should've had Chief Seattle as a ref back then. Red card.

So it was truly a case of the ends justifying the means eh?

Machiavelli has always been such a dirty player...

The best game was when Descartes tackled Spinoza on the premise of rational conformity of a single entity rather than dualistic separation that was a great game

would've loved to see Austria compete bu their star player Freud was suspended for cocaine use, also love the new french coach Montesquieu with his new division of power-strategy

But isn't that wrong? The theory of forms was Plato's work, not Aristotle.

Party Harty I was thinking that too..

Thats right, my bad.

Yes, much thought, and contemplation.

bloody hell its like academic comedy.

+Blair Gubernath "Ksss, ksss, bugger off! .....Bloody weather..." ;)

he was right though there was no defender ahead of the Greek who scored!

Yes, technically he was, the pass for the header was made while Socrates was in an offside position

Precisely!

Marx is correct, as usual.

cannedkitty Communism has failed everywhere it's been tried

YOU MARXIST! LOOK HERE, WE GOT A COMMIE!!! lol

Hey, just because for the FIRST time in his life Karl was right about something doesn't make me a pinko commie.

It was a flat pass sideways for the header... the pass before that uhm... yeah.

Kung Fu Sue Confucius, he say: The box has nothing to do with the offside rule. And both the pre-assist ánd the assist were passed to someone in offside-position.

True, but without seeing the linesman, the box was a useable point of reference.

No, the Greeks Scored a goal by cheating. Offsides should have been called. I blames the Linesman on that one.

it was obviously the second half, teams changed sides... and it's a clear offside

Well, with those eyes, I wouldn't be surprised if he couldn't see it.

Well, they... Leibniz had an off-day. And Marx was right. It was offside.

I think they were ganging up on the Germans. No one likes German philosophy.

I was going to mention that if no one else had. Funny little add-on.

Doren Garcia I mean, do you think masturbating on the field is allowed?

avr 1h Diogenes was said to sleep with the dogs, stealing what little sustenance he needed, walking in broad daylight with a lantern in the streets looking for an honest man, and also; masturbating in public. My favourite, of cource, and he would have been on cource as well. I imagine Diogenes as a work horse on the field, or rather, a rabid dog, tirelessly hunting down the opposition. He would pair nicely as a defensive midfielder alongside an untireable Sisyphus. One must imagine these men, nay legends of the sport of ballus philosphiae happy, when playing. My man Dio could for sure put in some offensive legwork as well, seeing as he could make Alexander the Great himself move aside for him. He is not expensive to have on the team either, as he has realised that he does not need a drinking flask, but merely his own hands.

He was too busy weeing the marketplace.. and barking at strangers...

"Don't mention the war! I did, but I think I got away with it" :)

AHAHAHAHAHA! :)

Wrong, they made an own goal even the reporter didn't noticed it because he was busy on Hegel and Kant.

it was the final half so they switch sides

Football aka "soccer" is far more interesting than American "foot"ball as the ball in America moves pretty much as much as in this sketch

obviously!

norkoilija Both suck.

"There's the ball, there's the ball..."

For Beckenbauer :D

Well he was all about the struggle, wasn't he? Alas, that little revolution started too late in the game.

yes, they would have killed the opposition.

He would have starved the opposing team.

I think most of the audience would be dead in a bloody fight.

The Printer's Devil!

Still, they did show Augustine and Aquinas in halos as well.

But Pythagoras was naturalized by the Sicilians! He didn't stand a chance in Greece as he played in the same position as Archimedes.

It was a proper finish, headed down, far corner. Unstoppable. And the quality of it made it all the funnier. Probably offside.

Ned Ryerson Not probably, definitely. Look at where the defender is when the pass is started.

k128kevin i

That’s weird, he’s usually wrong. And extremely wrong at that.

Jacob Morris probably never have actually read Marx's work, and based his opinion of him on what he misunderstands about Communism. Go read it, his conclusions might have been off, and his predictions have yet to materialize, but the majority of what he said made sense.

GuruJudge21 ‘Never read Marx’s work.’ Nice job, you’re wrong. I used to be a Marxist. His conclusions and predictions were completely wrong. Prediction 1 - ‘the rich get richer and the poor get poorer’...horrendously wrong. There are now less people living in poverty than ever before. In 1820, 94% of the world’s population were living in poverty. In 2015 that number was 10%, and 90% of the population were not living in poverty. This is completely due to the free market, the creation of a middle class and human innovation. Prediction 2 - ‘the workers will overthrow their liberal governments.’ If we look at the development of countries they seem to take around 80 years to develop to a comfortable state where people need fewer children and the quality of education and medicine becomes satisfactory. This is continuing with countries now being able to quicken the process to 50 years and in some cases 20 years. This correlated with increasing wealth and increasing innovation. Marx called for a revolution, and every time that has happened, people die by the millions. The only way to lift countries to a developed state is through the free market. Prediction 3 - ‘Capitalism will spread.’ Well this one was right. He also predicted that Capitalism would collapse under itself but we’ve seen quite the opposite. Capitalism has been able to reform itself. We now have welfare states, public funding and in my country and many others, free healthcare. All paid for by taxes. So please actually develop an argument before making accusations. Perhaps even do some more reading. I actually prefer moral philosophy. There’s too much disagreement in political philosophy, and a lot of time is required to see the results. Moral philosophy seems to focus more on a logical path.

Either you weren't a Marxist, or you were a horrible one, for distorting his views in such a way (and mine by the way, but that's beside the point). Perhaps I did jump the gun in saying you've never read Marx, but you certainly didn't understand it. First thing I said, his conclusions are dubious and his predictions haven't come true, and you cite his predictions at me. Marx is remembered as a philosopher, mostly for his work in how socio-economic systems affect people. His descriptions of the mechanisms of control in society are what make up the vast bulk of his work. He made a half a dozen predictions based on what he thought, and it's all some people ever bring up. Are you citing the 10% who live on less than a dollar a day? That's not the only portion of the world population that is impoverished. 80% live on less than ten, and the same percentage live in countries where wealth disparity is increasing, as the richest people in the world control more of its wealth than ever. Marx didn't, and couldn't be expected to foresee, the technological boom that humanity experienced at the turn of the century. The improvement in the quality of life was not due to the "free market", but to innovation. The only thing that facilitated change in capitalist societies was that it was better to have skilled industrial workers over unskilled subsistence ones. Workers whom I might add, of their own doing reformed governments beyond the original scope of Marx's eye anyway. Go see what happened in countries with 'free markets' that never underwent social reform from public pressure, and tell me more about how the free market is the only way to develop a country. You mention that yourself, capitalism has been forced to reform, to develop socialist systems, without which our societies would collapse, by the people. There's never been a large middle-class. There have only ever been the poor, those with enough money to live comfortably enough not to notice the disparity, the actual middle-class, and the rich. To call them the middle-class is to infer their income levels are a median between the rich and the poor. Your point about bloody revolutions is what gives you away. No one who ever subscribed to Marxism, ever placed responsibility for the 'Communist revolutions' at his feet, because you'd have to be insane to believe that he was responsible for them, whilst at the same time believing in what he said. I hope you'll try and claim that it was your discovery of these acts that led you to turn from Marxism, as if anyone who understand what the circumstances of these actions can still place the blame on a removed ideology, yet still champions capitalism without recognizing the same in it, is full of shit. I'm not even a Marxist, I think his views were important to historical understanding, and that he made a lot of good points, but he's far too removed from the present days to be looked to for political understanding. You criticize me for not making an actual argument when all I was responding to was your claim that Marx was usually, terribly wrong. It's a perfectly logical presumption that someone claiming that the sky is green hasn't actually seen the sky. Political philosophy is moral philosophy, and about as logical as moral philosophy gets. All that matters is cause and effect, the only problem is the amount of variables involved.