*READ*

[Exploited Class]

If you have any issues with the moderation of the board, actions by the Administration or CC decisions take them up with a Personal Message to the administration.

Or post them only in this thread.

Do not create a post about in the forums.

If an administrator doesn't respond to your post then it is because

A. They didn't want to
B. They've already told 20 people prior to your message.
C. They just happen to not be around.

There is no set defined time limit or set duration to when an admin HAS to respond to you. They have lives outside the message board. So, although you might be on pins and needles waiting for a response to a horrific crime that only can be described as an act equal to something
A. Nazis do
B. Fascists do
(make your choice out of the top three, everybody else does), they are grounded in reality and know that actions performed on a message board to maintain the quality of a message board is never equal to what a, b, or c have historically done.

If you never get a response from an admin, realize that does not allow you to make a post about restrictions. In fact, nothing allows you to make posts regarding restrictions. It is an old debate on the message board that gets brought up time and time again and your post equating admin actions to Nazis is not novel or new. You have not found a new way to say the same things 30 people prior to you already said.

If you make posts regarding restrictions, expect your post to be removed to trash where it will die. If you decide that you need to make another topic on restrictions or bans on the board expect your account to be banned, possibly only temporarily perhaps permanently. If somebody else decides to immediately take up position with you and replaced your trashed topic with a 'new' restriction topic that person will be banned.

It isn't removing your freedom of speech it is removing a topic that gets posted every 2 weeks.

Removed reference to "Stalinists," as we no longer restrict people for that. ~ CDL

[Individual]

Now that this is 'un-closed' and open for debate.

Is it forgiveable to the effect of members that had not this knowledge prior to this sticky?

Whatever disrespect all of this may have caused. Is it inconceivable that this knowledge was not known to myself prior to this?

I didn't realize that people with Marxist beliefs that do not spam, contribute in a positive way, have shown no disrespect, and have made a single error resulted in a restricition. Are half of the members at Che-Lives to have this restriction expected, for many fall under this category?

EC, I apologize to the effect for whatever disrespect I may have shown. Is a very simple mistake worth losing a voice for a good cause?

I do not feel honored to be put amongst the ranks of capitalists, fascists, and Nazis. I share many of the same beliefs as the honorable members of this forum.

Do not take this as a plea of mercy. I am voicing my concern for the common good.

[LSD]

AQ, if I remember correctly, you weren't restricted for your initial post, but for recreating it once it had been closed.

At that point, you can hardly fein ignorance. After all if your thread wasn't wanted the first time, you knew damn well that it wouldn't be wanted again!

[Individual]

Yes, and this is what I have labelled as a mistake.

The funniest thing I find about this, is that EC's excuse was I did not have the patience to PM Comrade James and ask for it be re-opened. Isn't it funny that I did PM CJ asking for this, yet CJ has not come forward and presented this information on my behalf, instead, he PM's myself with a smirk.

Funny how the politics work around here.

Oh well, what's done is done and over with. I'm not looking back, nor am I going to fuss about it.

[hazard]

if you could lift my restriction I would be appreciative

what did I do again?

[Individual]

Maybe I shouldn't do retaliation topics

Does it make sense? No.

[hazard]

I'm not even going to bother quoting your title, friend

[Individual]

You asked didn't you?


what did I do again?

I'd assume that you could have figured it out for yourself, guess you didn't. So I explained it to you.

Quote my title. Did I write it? Does it have any meaning? Only to EC, who claims I'm childish. I find that funny, for who is the one making the childish jokes?

[cubist]

speeking of childish i was born on the 27/11/1983 yet EC assume si am under 18 cus only under 18's would make references to nazi like politics, WELL i said STALIN not NAZI and stalin removed opposing opinions from the circle did he not? which is what EC DID. but standards for authority are always differnt oh the power.....

[A Free Mind]

I want to know why Im a restricted member the only reason I could think of would be my stance on gay marrages but I only commented politely on this issue and the only other posts have been questions on political and economic situations

also what is 'restricted membership' I do not know what is means and what if any effects it has

[Liberty Lover]

I think you should unban Goldfinger. I liked having access to the commie club.

FarkFark

[kylie]

Originally posted by A Free [email protected] 26 2004, 12:32 PM
I want to know why Im a restricted member the only reason I could think of would be my stance on gay marrages but I only commented politely on this issue and the only other posts have been questions on political and economic situations

also what is 'restricted membership' I do not know what is means and what if any effects it has
Because enjoy other men in a certain way.

[Liberty Lover]

The Anarchist Tension has been spamming here (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=8&t=23014).

He is disrupting healthly debates and should be banned.

[Liberty Lover]

It appears that someone has deleted his post.

[canikickit]

Originally posted by Liberty [email protected] 12 2004, 11:31 AM
I think you should unban Goldfinger. I liked having access to the commie club.

FarkFark
yeah. What are you talking about?

What post was deleted?

[Liberty Lover]

yeah. What are you talking about?

Goldfinger gave me his password. It was FarkFark.


What post was deleted?

A stupid picture posted by The Anarchist Tension and my response to it.

[BuyOurEverything]

Hey EC, you fuckface, how can you compare people who support Stalin to a fascist?

I don't think she was. She was making a reference to all the people who, upon realizing they are restricted, accuse the Che-Lives admin of having "Stalinist" policies. It was kind of sarcastic.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Bah, I got restricted, and I'm not even a Stalinist, and we don't restrict Stalinists anymore anyways, yet I get restricted thanks to the *****ing of The Anarchist Tension. I am not homophobic, I am not women hating, that twat just distorts my words to try and paint me in the most fascist picutre he can because I'm not just like him. I should be unrestricted and popped back into CC asap, or at very least, able to post under Science and Enviroment.

[Individual]

MM.

I know damn sure I can speak this one for myself, and others probably feel the same way on this.

TAT had absolutely nothing to do with me wanting you restricted. TAT may have spoke out about it, however you had formed my opinion weeks ago. Do not act like this is TAT's fault, the blame should lie solely on yourself.

Can you not see that the things you said were attacks against 'groups' on people. They were morally wrong, and yet you can't seem to figure out that what you said was offensive. Why is that?

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

I assure you, I did not intend to attack any group of people, but merely, I was attacking TAT who seemed to be impling that if you did not sit around nude with other men and talk about masterbation then there was something wrong with you. I have nothing against homosexuals, and I support them in their endevor the gain equal rights with everyone else. I you feel that my comments on the matter were offencive, then I appologize, but I meant no harm in what I said. It was merely a reaction to what TAT seemed to be implying.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2004, 03:14 AM
I assure you, I did not intend to attack any group of people, but merely, I was attacking TAT who seemed to be impling that if you did not sit around nude with other men and talk about masterbation then there was something wrong with you. I have nothing against homosexuals, and I support them in their endevor the gain equal rights with everyone else. I you feel that my comments on the matter were offencive, then I appologize, but I meant no harm in what I said. It was merely a reaction to what TAT seemed to be implying.
I find it interesting how people will blame everyone else and even create some twisted logic to defend it.

I have explained to you over and over and over and over and over and over again what was happening in that thread. You choose not to believe me. Not in any productive way, as in attempting to refute my arguments, you just repeat the same thing, over and over and over and over again.

I also think it is pretty outragous to assume that some how I have a magic wand over what people think...It's rediculas. I know next to nobody on this site personally, and those I do know I only know through PM's or MSN. The majority of whom I dont even know what they look like. I give my opinion and people can either accept it or reject it. We are talking about adults here...people who are older and have experienced far more than I have. To suggest I hold some kind of intellectual power over them is just mind boggling...what it comes down to is your unwillingness to accept that you were wrong..You were simply wrong. There is nothing else to understand or rationalize...

Just get over yourself!!!

I'd also like to point you to the numerous threads with which you claim you are not homophobic, which I again, have attempted to refute, again you continue to repeat yourself to levels so absurd that the moderators have to close the threads...And then you blame everyone else, particulally me because of it...

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

I find it interesting how people will blame everyone else and even create some twisted logic to defend it.

I find it offencive that you would twist my words to make it appear that I am something that I am not.


I have explained to you over and over and over and over and over and over again what was happening in that thread. You choose not to believe me. Not in any productive way, as in attempting to refute my arguments, you just repeat the same thing, over and over and over and over again.

I don't believe you because I know what I mean when I post in a thread. I do refute your arguements, you are the repetative one.


I also think it is pretty outragous to assume that some how I have a magic wand over what people think...It's rediculas. I know next to nobody on this site personally, and those I do know I only know through PM's or MSN. The majority of whom I dont even know what they look like. I give my opinion and people can either accept it or reject it. We are talking about adults here...people who are older and have experienced far more than I have. To suggest I hold some kind of intellectual power over them is just mind boggling...what it comes down to is your unwillingness to accept that you were wrong..You were simply wrong. There is nothing else to understand or rationalize...

If you really have no power at all to influence the opinions of other people, then why do you bother opening your mouth in the first place? People who accept your opinion sounds la lot ike influencing other people's opinions to me.


I'd also like to point you to the numerous threads with which you claim you are not homophobic, which I again, have attempted to refute, again you continue to repeat yourself to levels so absurd that the moderators have to close the threads...And then you blame everyone else, particulally me because of it...

I blame you because you are the whiney ***** who made that false accusation in the first place!

[Individual]

:blink:

MM. I have come up with some steps for you.

Step 1: Slap Yourself (hard)

Step 2: Step back for a minute, and in your mind think you are someone else.

Step 3: Go back and re-read all of your posts under 'abortion', 'sexual liberation', and 'what the hell'.

Step 4: Thinking as someone else, look at how you have made yourself come across. (homophobic, male chauvinist)

Step 5: If you cannot see this; goto steps 5a and 5b. If you can see this, then admit what you did was wrong, and apologize.

Step 5a: Slap yourself

Step 5b: Slap yourself again, then repeat Steps 1-5. Continue until accomplished.

I asked Dr. Phil on email, he reccomended this procedure. ;)

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2004, 07:56 PM

I find it interesting how people will blame everyone else and even create some twisted logic to defend it.

I find it offencive that you would twist my words to make it appear that I am something that I am not.


I have explained to you over and over and over and over and over and over again what was happening in that thread. You choose not to believe me. Not in any productive way, as in attempting to refute my arguments, you just repeat the same thing, over and over and over and over again.

I don't believe you because I know what I mean when I post in a thread. I do refute your arguements, you are the repetative one.


I also think it is pretty outragous to assume that some how I have a magic wand over what people think...It's rediculas. I know next to nobody on this site personally, and those I do know I only know through PM's or MSN. The majority of whom I dont even know what they look like. I give my opinion and people can either accept it or reject it. We are talking about adults here...people who are older and have experienced far more than I have. To suggest I hold some kind of intellectual power over them is just mind boggling...what it comes down to is your unwillingness to accept that you were wrong..You were simply wrong. There is nothing else to understand or rationalize...

If you really have no power at all to influence the opinions of other people, then why do you bother opening your mouth in the first place? People who accept your opinion sounds la lot ike influencing other people's opinions to me.


I'd also like to point you to the numerous threads with which you claim you are not homophobic, which I again, have attempted to refute, again you continue to repeat yourself to levels so absurd that the moderators have to close the threads...And then you blame everyone else, particulally me because of it...

I blame you because you are the whiney ***** who made that false accusation in the first place!
How's restriction suiting you... :lol:

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Why couldn't you have been kicked from CC prior to my restriction...

[Individual]

The Anarchist Tension Posted: Mar 17 2004, 09:11 PM
Comandante


Group: Commie Club
Posts: 1784
Member No.: 2471
Joined: 20-June 03

Kicked out of CC? Since when? TAT was never out of CC, I have no idea what you are talking about? Real odd... ;)

So did Dr. Phil's suggestions work for you? Or are you still going through the process?

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

D: He just got put back in!

[canikickit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2004, 12:39 AM
Why couldn't you have been kicked from CC prior to my restriction...
What difference would that have made?

[D'Anconia]

Why was the link in my signature changed?
No one has ever said anything about not allowing that. Why was it changed?

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by D'[email protected] 2 2004, 04:36 AM
Why was the link in my signature changed?
No one has ever said anything about not allowing that. Why was it changed?
Because everyone hates you.

[D'Anconia]

Originally posted by COMRADE RAF+Apr 2 2004, 06:23 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (COMRADE RAF @ Apr 2 2004, 06:23 PM)
D&#39;[email protected] 2 2004, 04:36 AM
Why was the link in my signature changed?
No one has ever said anything about not allowing that. Why was it changed?
Because everyone hates you. [/b]
That very well may be. But that does not justify changing my signature without even so much as telling me. If there was aproblem with it the civil thing to do would have been to ask me to change it or at least to notify me ahead of time. I have given no one any reason to hate me. I have not been hateful towards anyone on this board. I probably disagree with 99% of the posters on this board, but I have never once claimed to hate anyone. This whole incident says a lot about the type of people that hold leftist views. Those who disagree with you are to be hated and mistreated.

[Vinny Rafarino]

No one ever suggested that I was civil.


As a matter of fact, I sit around all night long thinking of how I can hatch my master plan to change the code in all of the capitalist&#39;s signatures.

My evil-genius is uncomprehendable.

Beware boy, for I am currently planning to immediately change your signature to something like "I eat poop" or " I like do have people pee on my chest".




Those who disagree with you are to be hated and mistreated.

I would prefer to just whack them out.

[D&#39;Anconia]

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 3 2004, 11:19 PM
No one ever suggested that I was civil.


As a matter of fact, I sit around all night long thinking of how I can hatch my master plan to change the code in all of the capitalist&#39;s signatures.

My evil-genius is uncomprehendable.

Beware boy, for I am currently planning to immediately change your signature to something like "I eat poop" or " I like do have people pee on my chest".




Those who disagree with you are to be hated and mistreated.

I would prefer to just whack them out.
If this was done in an attempt to get me to leave, let me tell you right now, son, that it will not work. If anything it may cause me to be more active on this board just to spite you.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

I bet a banning would make you slightly less active?

[D&#39;Anconia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 05:22 AM
I bet a banning would make you slightly less active?
I have done nothing to deserve being banned.

[Invictus]

Why was the link in my signature changed?

Avatar and sig changing by Admin&#39;s has been going on at Che-Lives since the days of "Imperial Power".

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Invictus, are you going to change your ideology like you did over at the Phora because everybody was coming down on you.

:D

Invictus is one of the less respected members of the Phora, I believe Randroid is the usual mockery.

[canikickit]

Invictus is Liberty Lover.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

He is Caesar Augustas over at The Phora, changed from Invictus the Randroid to Caesar Augustas because everyone over there was giving him abuse.

[Individual]

Invictus is Liberty Lover.


I have done nothing to deserve being banned.

Really? :blink:

[Invictus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 01:10 PM
Invictus, are you going to change your ideology like you did over at the Phora because everybody was coming down on you.

:D

Invictus is one of the less respected members of the Phora, I believe Randroid is the usual mockery.
Who are you at the Phora?

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

So I take it capitalism is Invictus&#39;s ideology of the week?

[Invictus]

You don&#39;t have a clue what you are talking about, son.

[D&#39;Anconia]

QUOTE
I have done nothing to deserve being banned.



Really?





Can you name one thing? :huh:

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Over at the Phora he is too busy glorifying Caesar Augustas. I dont think capitalism comes into anything at the Phora, its not a priority.

I am not a member, I have an account I havent used yet, but I do browse over there for the conversations. I admire Fade&#39;s interest in Nietzsche.

[thatCHEr]

I&#39;m suprised I haven&#39;t been sent to the gulags yet. Not that I&#39;m complaining. Psshhhh, beaurocrats.

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2004, 04:34 PM
I&#39;m suprised I haven&#39;t been sent to the gulags yet. Not that I&#39;m complaining. Psshhhh, beaurocrats.
As soon as we find your file and have it signed and stamped by the appropriate people; you&#39;ll be doing back breaking labour in eastern siberia for the rest of your life.

[Invictus]

Why was Iron Star banned?

[thatCHEr]

what

[James]

If you have any issues with the moderation of the board, actions by the Administration or CC decisions take them up with a Personal Message to the administration.

I have, but they all keep "blaming each other".
No one will give me a straight answer.


Or post them only in this thread.

Do not create a post about in the forums.

OK.




Can i ask, what were the reason[s] for my restriction?

If i remember correctly, I was thrown out of the CC because i did not support the withdrawal of the coalition from iraq following the end of the war. Why? Well not because i&#39;m an "imperialist"&#33; I don&#39;t know where this has come from frankly, my guess is that kamo etc associated me with disraeli, and then disraeli with imperialism (although to be fair, Disraeli wasn&#39;t responsible for much of "his imperialism" as many make out - for example, actions in Africa can be blamed on the commanding officer in africa - NOT disraeli, who had in fact given orders which were IGNORED).

Indeed, this tactic of association is very underhand; i am not interested in Disraeli&#39;s foreign policy; merely his domestic progam. You could compare this interest of mine in disraeli, to the interest many historians have with the Nazi&#39;s persecution of minorities - just because they express an interest, doesn&#39;t mean they are in favour of the said actions/thoughts.
It is probably fair to say that if i do "admire" disraeli, it is an admiration for what he did for the working people of britain (look for the relevant thread for my LIST).

So if it wasn&#39;t imperialism, why was i not in favour of the full withdrawal after the war? Well to me, that would have resulted in MORE deaths and suffering. I do understand that to many members on here, human lifes obviously arn&#39;t as important as their idealist revolution, but in my opinion - i wouldn&#39;t want some spoty group of 18-20 year olds being all for my death/suffering, simply because it serves their own ideology&#33;

To ME, It was the lesser of evils. I never pretended that there were not other options. I prefered other options. But to me, at the time, pulling out would have been irresponsible after the coalition had disabled iraq&#39;s infrastructure, poilice force etc etc. Of course, the anarchists will find this irrelevant: but where in the rules does it state we must all be anarchists to be allowed out of the OI?
Or have the rules changed now? Is anarchism the only ideology allowed now? Are all other ideologies "opposing"?



So anyway: that was probably why i got kicked from the CC some time ago.
But why NOW, several weeks after, am i restricted?

The only thing to "come up" was the religion forum. Am i thus right in assuming i am now caged like a nazi, simply because i hold a personal belief in jesus christ?

Lets not run away with ourselves here&#33;
It is not as if i was trying to convert anyone.
How many threads did i start?
Who did i personally attack?
What beliefs did i promis to purge if i ever got power (see my sig&#33;)?
Did i ever even state that if you are different to me (i.e. hold different beliefs), then you are "stupid", "illogical", "inferior" or even "misguided"?
Am i member of any organised group? (the answer is no btw :P)


Today was the first time i&#39;ve even posted in religion for a few weeks&#33;




Enough of my ramblings&#33;
Please, do tell - why have i been restricted like a nazi/stalinist?

[Vinny Rafarino]

Please, do tell - why have i been restricted like a nazi/stalinist?


"Stalinists" are not restricted to OI, only capitalists. imperialists, religious fanatics, extremely absusive members, spammers and other piles of garbage are.

[James]

My mistake. And in fact, you are quite wrong too on the proper wording...

"Only forum where right-wingers, cappies, preachers and other misguided individuals are allowed to post. *No Nazi trash*"
None of which i am, by any stretch of the imagination (unless you make crap up: but a moderator wouldn&#39;t do that... would they?).

I notice that you didn&#39;t actually answer the post. I guess you must be in favour of me being un-restricted, maybe even given CC membership again.

Or maybe you just like witch hunts&#33;










...when they don&#39;t affect you

[Vinny Rafarino]

notice that you didn&#39;t actually answer the post. I guess you must be in favour of me being un-restricted, maybe even given CC membership again.


I do not providde CC information, personal or not, to those that do not have cc access.

I am sure however that you have a good idea where I stand.


None of which i am, by any stretch of the imagination (unless you make crap up: but a moderator wouldn&#39;t do that... would they?).



Are you attempting to say that I have somehow "fabricated evidence" that contributed the the democratic actions that were taken against you?

Or are you really just trying to sway public favour towards your campaign (yes, we know that there are moles that provide you and other non CC members an "up to date transcript" of the CC threads, we even know who provides them) because you have been informed a discussion may be happening in the CC about you?

You insinuation that there is a conspiracy to "plant evidence" (try something new Johnny Cochran) is complete bollocks. Do you think anyone will fall for it? Remember son, it&#39;s near election time in the USA and people are seeing campaign ads featuring bullshit mudslinging tactics all the time, which is all this really is isn&#39;t it?

You were restriced for being supportive of capitalist imperialism efforts in Iraq, the fact that you&#39;re also a religious zealot is just the icing on the cake.

Any more "repentive sermons" for us Mr. Baker? If you do, at least we can say that they will be posted in the only forum where your ideology is acceptable; right here in the OI.

[James]

Are you attempting to say that I have somehow "fabricated evidence" that contributed the the democratic actions that were taken against you?

No, i&#39;m not attempting to say that.

I am saying that it was done before; and thus would not be surprised if some people did it again.

Lets see...


because you have been informed a discussion may be happening in the CC about you?

Yes, redstar informed me.



You insinuation that there is a conspiracy to "plant evidence" (try something new Johnny Cochran) is complete bollocks

History supports what i say. Of course, history doesn&#39;t repeat itself, but is usually provides one with enough knowledge to be able to predict well what will happen in the future.

Thus i may be wrong now, i&#39;m only assuming you see: but i KNOW that it happened before.
Look at the thread in CC started by... Kez i believe, which ended up with me getting kicked.
If that doesn&#39;t satisfy you, i suggest you look up the disraeli thread.


Do you think anyone will fall for it


A vast amount of people KNOW it has happened



You were restriced for being supportive of capitalist imperialism efforts in Iraq

I was thrown out of the CC for this some time ago.
And it is STILL a lie: of course people can SPIN what i said, and insert implications - but it doesn&#39;t change the TRUTH.

I never supported imperialism: i tried dam hard to stop the war (yes i know i&#39;m only one person etc etc), i got in a considerable amount of trouble for it even.
So no, i did not support imperialism.

Some people however have either misunderstood what i later said, or CHOSEN to spin it. It is true that after the occupation had begun, i was not one of those who called for the emediate withdrawal; ESPECIALLY after the UN pulled out. But that wasn&#39;t for imperialist reasons, i never said;

"keep the coalition in so we can destroy iraq&#33;
Up imperialism&#33;&#33;&#33;"

Did i?

I was in favour of the troops staying for humanitarian, not imperialist, reasons. I understand that your personal ideology dictates to you that humans should be sacrificed to satisfy your theory - but honestly, what else would the pulling out have achieved RAF?

What would have been achieved by the withdrawal?

Do you think if they pulled out the imperialism would go to??
If so, then yes - i really do think that you are a complete and utter retard who has no grasp upon reality. The US doesn&#39;t need troops in a country to control it&#33; Or even to simply benifit from it. I suggest you read up on modern day imperialism, BEFORE you accuse others of supporting it.
How can you know if someone supports something, when you don&#39;t even know what it is?&#33;?&#33;

The fact of the matter is that once the coalition had defeated Saddam, and destroyed iraq&#39;s inferstructure, Iraq had become a colony of america and britain. Nothing could change that fact.

Troops remaining in iraq however meant that the media would stay. The hostile status meant that the coalition had to be seen to be working in the interests of iraqi people. And not just merely seen either&#33;

And lets face it, there was alot to be done. e.g. water, electricity, jobs etc etc
I&#39;m not saying that the coalition improved these significantly: i think the UN would have done a much better job. But RAF old boy, the UN pulled out.
There was two options:


1. everyone pulls out - and iraq gets worse and worse, leaving the way open for the extremists (lets face it, the dominant extremists there were not left wing). Result? More suffering.

2. everyone stays - and tries their hardest to get iraq up and running again. Or at least attempts to do so... Result? Less suffering.

Option 1 was not an option to me: in my opinion, enough people have suffered. Option 2 was the lesser of two evils. Not the ideal solution at all&#33;

I have now made my position quite clear, on numerous occasions.
I do not, nor have ever, supported imperialism. Any accusations of me doing so, have so far lacked any real supporting evidence. (and i&#39;m not surprised... see the start of the post)


the fact that you&#39;re also a religious zealot is just the icing on the cake

No...
As i said before;
Lets not run away with ourselves here&#33;

It is not as if i was trying to convert anyone.
How many threads did i start?
Who did i personally attack?
What beliefs did i promis to purge if i ever got power (see my sig&#33;)?
Did i ever even state that if you are different to me (i.e. hold different beliefs), then you are "stupid", "illogical", "inferior" or even "misguided"?
Am i member of any organised group? (the answer is no btw )

I&#39;m just as religious as redceltic. One of the admins. Why arn&#39;t you going for his head too?

The imperialism lie got me kicked from CC several weeks ago.
This restriction isn&#39;t therefore about imperialism - it can only be about this new issue: religion.
... watch out redceltic...

[Vinny Rafarino]

I am saying that it was done before; and thus would not be surprised if some people did it again.

Lets see...


Zoinks&#33;

You have caught us. There has been a vast left wing conspiracy to have you restricted to to OI.

We would have gotten away with it too it it wasn&#39;t for those meddling kids. :lol:

I suggest you get a prescription for an anti psychotic. In your advanced state of delusion, I will recommend both Trifluoperazine and Clozapine. They will definitely help you reach back into reality.


History supports what i say. Of course, history doesn&#39;t repeat itself, but is usually provides one with enough knowledge to be able to predict well what will happen in the future.


Of course it does dear, just sit back, relax and tell us everything. Don&#39;t be afraid of the straps, they are there for your own protection.


A vast amount of people KNOW it has happened


Are you they only one to ever "see" these people James?



I&#39;m just as religious as redceltic. One of the admins. Why arn&#39;t you going for his head too?


:lol:

Don&#39;t know him very well do you?



The remaining portions of your post are simple babble. (they also solidify your imperialist rendencies)



1. everyone pulls out - and iraq gets worse and worse, leaving the way open for the extremists (lets face it, the dominant extremists there were not left wing). Result? More suffering.

2. everyone stays - and tries their hardest to get iraq up and running again. Or at least attempts to do so... Result? Less suffering.

Option 1 was not an option to me: in my opinion, enough people have suffered. Option 2 was the lesser of two evils. Not the ideal solution at all&#33;

When are you going to learn? Any support of imperialist occupation of another nation, NO MATTER HOW JUSTIFIED YOU THINK IT IS, is not a leftist position and never will be&#33;

Get it now Corky?

[James]

You have caught us. There has been a vast left wing conspiracy to have you restricted to to OI.

We would have gotten away with it too it it wasn&#39;t for those meddling kids

No you are right... i&#39;m really a tory boy who ups imperialism at every chance i get.
Oh and don&#39;t forget i burn people for not following my religion, which by the way, i preach all the time&#33;

:rolleyes:


Don&#39;t know him very well do you?

Go into the thread in religion where redceltic is attacked for his religion, he explains his religion in quite some depth.
We are both "religious".
Neither of us preach it though: so thats partly why i said that we are "just as religious".



The remaining portions of your post are simple babble.

Which when translated means you know that you have been proven wrong.

I hope we arn&#39;t all struggling, now that an explanation has been given, to show how the evil james is still an imperialist&#33;

The logical and rational members will have noted how you ignore the truth: the truth which shows your accusation (i&#39;m a "supported of imperialism") to be groundless.


(they also solidify your imperialist rendencies)


Like?


When are you going to learn? Any support of imperialist occupation of another nation, NO MATTER HOW JUSTIFIED YOU THINK IT IS, is not a leftist position and never will be&#33;

Get it now Corky?


When are you going to get off that bloody high horse and open your eyes&#33;
Iraq is now a colony of america. FACT.

Withdrawing the troops wouldn&#39;t change that. Or have i over estimated your intelligence&#33; Do you actually think that if they pulled out their troops, iraq would be in any way "free"? Do you actually think imperialism would be no more, if they pulled out?

Read up on what modern day imperialism is&#33;

Withdrawing of the troops would have resulted in;
1. more deaths
2. more crime
but
3. less electricity
4. less clean water
5. less jobs
6. less medical facilities
BUT
6. STILL imperialism.

In effect what you are trying to say, is that i am inadvertably a supporter of imperialism because i do not support the withdrawal. As i pointed out though, the withdrawal would not have ended imperialism - but there would have been more human suffering.

The conclusion is therefore, that either
1. i AM a supporter of imperialism, in the really wierd way that you described (which involves alot of naive, irrational "implying", and ANARCHIST [which i am not] ideology).
OR
2. i&#39;m not; as i explained rationally

If you accept 1 though, then i&#39;m afraid it also therefore true that YOU ARE A SUPPORTER OF IMPERIALISM.
The only possible difference between us, is that you support imperialism with more suffering.


I&#39;ll repeat:
i did not and do not WANT iraq to be occupied
i did not WANT the war
I campaigned against both.
I&#39;m for iraqi&#39;s having their country back
i&#39;m for nationalisation of their industries
i&#39;m not for, and oppose bitterly, the contracting and selling off of iraq&#39;s industry

Imperialism is the spread of a countries influence/control: i&#39;m not for this.

It is a fucking joke that i was thrown out of the CC several weeks ago on this BULLSHIT - and now later, am restricted on the same charge&#33;
This strongly suggests that i was not restricted because of this bullshit claim, that i&#39;m "a supporter of imperialism"; but instead have been restricted because i have a religion.

Yet at the same time, there is another with a similar level of "faith", and he&#39;s an admin&#33; The only reason he hasn&#39;t posted on the topic as much as i have, is that his religion hasn&#39;t been attacked as much (i point out again, i never start threads: i don&#39;t even reply to most attacks&#33;).



The only other bit of "evidence" which would in any way merely suggest i&#39;m a right winger, is that i considered voting tory in the EU elections. Again, i&#39;ve made my position quite clear, on more than once occasion.
I dislike the EU to a great extent. I&#39;m not for further intergration (thus that rules out labour, lib dem) and political union.
I was therefore left with:
UKIP
BNP
Tory
But then i found out about the green&#39;s position (which i had not been aware of).

I voted GREEN.
Who will i vote for in the next general? Well that is a way off... but probably green again.




Conslusion
I&#39;m not a right winger
I&#39;m not a supporter of imperialism

Any suggestion otherwise is based of fabricated evidence, or pure lies.
This restriction is a JOKE. And an insult to che lives.

[James]

Thank you for lifting the restriction&#33;

(although, really; now that this reason isn&#39;t valid - surely i shouldn&#39;t have been kicked from the cc&#33;)

[Vinny Rafarino]

(although, really; now that this reason isn&#39;t valid - surely i shouldn&#39;t have been kicked from the cc&#33;)


Sometimes democracy is criminal.

Enjoy your freedom while you can because you never know when another "recount" will "pop up" in the CC.

I certainly hope that the pills are helping your delusions.

[James]

funnily enough, i am actually still restricted&#33; I can&#39;t post in any other forums, but i did get the bigger account (restricted members get a much smaller messenger memory), and it doesn&#39;t say "Restricted" anymore...


certainly hope that the pills are helping your delusions.


What are you on about now raf?

[gaf]

this is really the funniest tread on this site .but sadly also the more paradoxal .in the way that you (we) will never understand each other. but it &#39;s no news .is it ?

[ernestolynch]

When did this site stop restricting Communists?

[Hugo_ChaveZ]

dont turn this great site into a dictatorship, cuz u are not making justice to Karl Marx and socialism by being so psycho-rigid


Hugo_Chavez


"You&#39;re only human, you&#39;re supposed to make mistakes." -Billy Joel

[gaf]

ah ah ah

let&#39;s laught :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Danton]

Anarchist Tension is dishing me out warning points for fuck, fucking all. It&#39;s not right Iv&#39;e done nothing - he&#39;s had it in for me from day one, someone help me, stop him - he&#39;s off his trolly...

[redtrigger]

This may be the wrong place to post this, so move it if you want. But what is the Commie Club, and why does James want back in so bad? :huh: :blink:

I realize that this is being nosy, and if you dont want to answer I will not be offended, but I would appreciate a reply.

I do not know if this will offend anybody, but if it does, I am sorry.

[Guest1]

The Che-Lives Guidelines (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?act=boardrules) explain what it is.

James wants back in cause he&#39;s a religious nutcase, and an imperialist, who was once a member. He was ejected, and now he&#39;s trying to get back again.

[redtrigger]

thank you
:)

[Individual]

RedZeppelin, stick to music, that is probably the only place your presence is wanted. Notice your the only one that had a problem with the thread, RAF would have jumped at the chance to shut me down, but his brain functions enough to let it stay.. Read a book, build model airplanes, fantasize over dinosaurs; do something with your life.




Interpret them as you will.

Your interpretation is said to be wrong, aren&#39;t mistakes usually fixed?


The statement that freedom means supporting "capitalism and free business"?

Yeah, you&#39;ll find that leftists generally do have an "adverse reaction" to that kind of bullshit.

You will usually find that a Marxist understands the principle that with the state of Socialism comes the loss of personal freedoms. Most wouldn&#39;t be so hurt by this understanding that it comes with the hopeful betterment of all.

I don&#39;t see why the truth is so darn upsetting, didn&#39;t we all already know this?

Or have I opened the door to a whole new concept, one that some of you weren&#39;t akin to yet? If so, I am sorry to burst your bubble, the truth hurts sometimes.

The fact of the matter is that with Socialism comes the loss of many personal freedoms.


If you meant excesive freedoms or some freedoms then you should have written that.

Gee, I wasn&#39;t planning on such a gross mis-interpretation that I would be restricted for it.

Next time I&#39;ll be sure to look into the future and re-analyze every last detail to suit your reading tastes.


That sentence clearly states that advocating any freedom requires advocacy of capitalism/free business.

Now you&#39;re pulling strings.

I clearly state that advocating any freedom requires advocating capitalism do I?

Let us re-look at the orignal statement I wrote to see just how clearly I wrote about any/all freedoms.

If you are an advocate of freedom, than it seems you would be an advocate of capitalism and free business

Sure seems deadline and clear now doesn&#39;t it?

If we are going to play hardball and get down into the nitty gritty, don&#39;t make it seem as if I wrote this in black and white, either or. I can&#39;t stand when people put words in my mouth.


But you didn&#39;t write "complete freedom", you wrote "freedom".


Should have looked into the future again realizing you may have a soft stomach.

My apologies that I wasn&#39;t thinking ahead about restriction. Being a libertarian and pointing out a misconception are two totally different things.

I hadn&#39;t planned on playing the libertarian, therefore I hadn&#39;t planned on re-analyzing my post making it just perfect for the reading audience.


Your ..."linguistics"?

What?&#33;?

Sorry, but as a linguistics student, I&#39;m very confused by that sentence....

Being that linguistics student you are, you should see the irony in what I wrote.

Look deeper, you&#39;ve already shredded my words enough times, this one shouldn&#39;t be too hard for you.

The irony of using the term linguistics while trying to imply that I know what I&#39;m doing.. Nevermind, you should be able to figure it out..


In the future, then, I would advise not writing statements that convey that inpression.

In the future, I would advise managing your own life, instead of over-analyzing mine.

Here is the deal. Having a sassy tone isn&#39;t going to get me anywhere, but can you understand a tad bit, maybe just a smiggen, why it is irritating to find that I am restricted for something I have been mistaken for?

We all know that I like to play devil&#39;s advocate, just because redstar doesn&#39;t understand the concept doesn&#39;t mean that I don&#39;t do this.

I can see that nobody has bothered to make an issue about this, but I&#39;ll be damned if we can just let a mis-interpretation go. I am not a libertarian, and I am not right-wing.

Just because I cannot come out in deciding whether to put some funny adjective in front of a noun does not mean that I must be a right-winger. I am un-decided, so I seriously wonder how anyone else can know what I am before I do myself.

I know what my political beliefs are, but to narrow me into some category seems unfitting for my personality. Why then I ask should this be punishable?

Just because a few online-personalities would like to go ahead and lead you to believe that they have any inclination into my mind, does not mean that they really do. Do not be fooled, they have their own agenda.

Have we locked me up and thrown away the key. Or does anyone have the nerve to do anything about this?

[DaCuBaN]

Reason and excuse are synonymous: James was only ever unrestricted through tireless campaigning from some parties in the CC, and those parties are no longer present.

Do not expect "mercy", even when the "evidence" is of misconception. I for one detest those of you who are so easily blindsided into restricting someone like AQ, or even James for that matter. Similarly, having re-read this thread I find the accusations of paranoia intruiging - after all, our "alternative" board has a big "conspiracy" against Che-Lives, right? :lol:

Grow up, people: AQ did nothing to merit your restriction other than ask a few difficult questions. I&#39;ve oft said that introspection is the key to enlightenment - that oh-so-essential stage of development from the dictatorship of the proletariat through to communism - perhaps it&#39;s time to look at yourselves and ask why you restrict the people you do?

I guess that&#39;s a dumb question though... <_<

[Intifada]

AQ did nothing to merit your restriction

I agree.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I normally wouldn&#39;t reply to this spam/whining bullshit, but I must digress.

Bourgeois "freedoms" are not freedoms at all.
What you said was indeed reactionary.
It&#39;s like saying that to ban rape is a suspension of freedom.

Bourgeois "freedoms" are actually in themselves an infringement of the freedom. They are the opposite of freedom.

[DaCuBaN]

ames wants back in cause he&#39;s a religious nutcase, and an imperialist, who was once a member. He was ejected, and now he&#39;s trying to get back again.

Such loathing. I wonder where that will hit home hardest? :(


I normally wouldn&#39;t reply to this spam/whining bullshit, but I must digress.

You still haven&#39;t "responded". Be a "man": Admit that AQ was ejected then restricted because some members of the CC don&#39;t like him. Be a "man": admit that James was ejected and restricted because some members of the CC don&#39;t like him

Stop being such fucking sectarian trash, and get some integrity. So oft am I sickened by the attitudes portrayed on this site...

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Both James and AQ are restrcited because politically, they&#39;re reactionary ****s.

I don&#39;t have any personal issue with anyone on this forum. I only know about five peopel on here, and they&#39;re all cool people.

[Individual]

I do not want to be narrowed down into that group. I appreciate the sentiment DaC, but Ortega admitted to being capitalist, or atleast following a mixed economy, and James followed the regular guidelines to find himself restricted.

There is no reason for my restriction. I am not a right-winger, and my words have been manipulated to show for something they are not.

It is documented on Che-Lives that my posts were being looked upon for any shed of reasoning in restricting me.

Bottom line is that this has become merely a form of entertainment for a handful of members. Personally if I want a laugh I would go out for a comedy show, maybe hire a birthday clown in Levis jeans. Not aimlessly finding humor essentially laughing with myself about a faceless character on an internet message board.

But hey, maybe we all get out kicks in different ways.

they&#39;re reactionary ****s

Why do you say that? Because my view at a more democratic form of Socialism doesn&#39;t fit into your state-governed idea of society?

Or because you have no idea what a reactionary is and decide to throw it out there everytime you get narrowed into a corner? You decide.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

If you are an advocate of freedom, than it seems you would be an advocate of capitalism and free business.

You said that to condone freedom is to condone capitalism this id absurd.
To advocate the restriction of freedoms is to condone capitalism. The two are opposites.
According to your own logic, one can either condemn freedom, or be a capitalist. Which one are you, AQ?

[The Feral Underclass]

Shut the fuck up all of you, noone wants to read this bollocks.

AQ, you&#39;re restricted, deal with it.

[Danton]

You shut the fuck up fuckin nazi bastard.

[Individual]

AQ, you&#39;re restricted, deal with it.

Damn, from acquitance and email-list to dirt on the ground in ten seconds flat&#33; You really take this administration business seriously don&#39;t you?

TAT, I&#39;m not a Libertarian, deal with it.

[RedAnarchist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2004, 03:08 PM
You shut the fuck up fuckin nazi bastard.
:lol: :lol:


An Anarchist Nazi?&#33;

Danton, you should be a comedian. You&#39;d be crap, but your idiotic name-calling is first class&#33; :D

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2004, 03:08 PM
You shut the fuck up fuckin nazi bastard.
You&#39;re like a spoilt little kid who doesn&#39;t get his own way. I&#39;m sorry that you aren&#39;t unrestricted but It was democratically decided that you should be kept restricted. I have attempted pming you on several occasions, but you have blocked me.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2004, 07:52 PM
Damn, from acquitance and email-list to dirt on the ground in ten seconds flat&#33; You really take this administration business seriously don&#39;t you?
What am I taking seriously..? The fact that people are *****ing and whining about their restriction...Sorry about that.

Stop trying to turn this into something which it clearly isn&#39;t. I don&#39;t know you, i&#39;ve never met you, and I dont have a personal vendetta against you. You have been restricted because it was democratically decided, if you don&#39;t like it, then go away. It&#39;s as simple as that...I&#39;m not being "serious" or malicious, i&#39;m just stating fact. Stop trying to draw me in to these childish games. I don&#39;t want anything to do with them..

Just get on debating or fuck off.


TAT, I&#39;m not a Libertarian, deal with it.

I don&#39;t give a shit.

[Individual]

All this coming from the guy with countless threads whining, moaning, and *****ing. Yeah, remember you?

Or how about the time you were booted from the commie club. No whining, moaning and *****ing then eh?

Interesting..

Out of all people, I will surely listen to you complain about too much whining.

All I am trying to put forth is that I am not right-wing, I am not libertarian, and if explaining the truth is considered critisizing Marxism; then what in the hell are any of you doing here?

If you consider yourself Marxist, and you cannot accept the fact that with Marxism comes the loss of many personal freedoms, then I suggest you put some more reading to use.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2004, 08:59 PM
All this coming from the guy with countless threads whining, moaning, and *****ing. Yeah, remember you?

Or how about the time you were booted from the commie club. No whining, moaning and *****ing then eh?

Interesting..

Out of all people, I will surely listen to you complain about too much whining.

All I am trying to put forth is that I am not right-wing, I am not libertarian, and if explaining the truth is considered critisizing Marxism; then what in the hell are any of you doing here?

If you consider yourself Marxist, and you cannot accept the fact that with Marxism comes the loss of many personal freedoms, then I suggest you put some more reading to use.
Oh for god sake kyle, shut up&#33;

[cormacobear]

your argument has degenerated into name calling. Always Question list enough legitimate reasons why you should be reinstated and of course they&#39;ll be taken into consideration but name calling and general complaining, isn&#39;t going to endear you to anyone with the power to speak on your behalf. If you think there&#39;s sufficient evidence to support your re-instatement, then concisely list it. If not post where you can and if your behavoir there warrants another look at your restriction it will be.

Angry pointless arguments only serves to cement opposition to your reinstatement.

[revolutionindia]

Hey&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; what happened to my unrestriction ?
I thought I saw it coming
Light at the end of the tunnel :)

[The Feral Underclass]

There was a vote in FF and it was decided that you would stay restricted. But I will reduce one of your warning points.

[RedAnarchist]

stay restricted, you mean?

[The Feral Underclass]

Indeed

[revolutionindia]

Ok I think that will do for the time being

Just one question

Did I lose with a huge margin or was it close ?

[Individual]

So let me get this straight..

I have two options as for the reasoning to why I was restricted...

1. I&#39;ve been labelled Libertarian by others with a lack of ability to interpret and the full ability to make shit up.

2. I spoke truth about Marxism, something all knowledgable Marxists would not deny.

Browsing around, I couldn&#39;t help myself but notice something perculiar.

A local Che-Lives mod, as well as a Canadian lifeguard, labels himself as a Libertarian-Marxist. A Libertarian-Marxist incase you missed it.

A mod mind you.

Now, considering that I do not subscribe myself to Libertarianism, and we have a mod that does, this certainly cannot be the case for my restriction.

Taking a look at the second option, stating that with Marxism comes the lack of personal freedoms. Why I would be restricted for common fact about Marxism, on a Marxist board, covering something any leftist would agree upon, sure beats the hell out of me.

Aside from all of this, I do not even post often, what is the harm with me posting in a few Philosophy threads, maybe a Chit-Chat here and there? There is no problem, I don&#39;t have coodies anymore.

If wishing upon pro-choice, legalization of certain narcotics, decreased military spending, and a greater peace among individuals makes me Libertarian, why isn&#39;t the entire board locked up? Hell, ComradeRAF would have this whole place to himself. :)

Honestly though, a mod declares himself a Libertarian, why the huff and puff over me?

[The Feral Underclass]

The ideas of libertarianism and Libertarian Marxism are fundamentally different.

Are you an anti-capitalist and if so why?

[Individual]

The ideas of libertarianism and Libertarian Marxism are fundamentally different.

The ideas of potato and tomato are fundamentally different. :unsure:

Now did I sound cool using fundamentally or what&#33;


Are you an anti-capitalist and if so why?

Are you an Anarchist full of tension and if so why?

Do you brush your teeth twice daily?

Do you flush after every use?

Does your mother still do your laundry?

Do you hate it when people ask dumb questions in which the answers are either obvious or have already been explained?

TheAnarchistTension, you are the last person I want to deal with. You don&#39;t run this place, hell, remember the days when you were ridiculed daily?

Next..


It has been this month that was spoke of.. I suggest getting new whips, nobody left any marks&#33; :(

Man, I thought this was going to teach me some lessons.. Guess I should have realized that all were busy with global revolution..

..Or atleast *****ing about Santa Claus.

[Danton]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 12 2004, 02:21 PM
There was a vote in FF and it was decided that you would stay restricted. But I will reduce one of your warning points.
Reduce one of mine please, I&#39;ll pay you... In money or whatever..
I&#39;m at maximum warning, I can&#39;t live like this..

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 01:28 PM
...or whatever..
Whatever?

[The Feral Underclass]

What happened to the coy comment?

[Danton]

The whores that run this ship are infiltrating and penetrating me from all angles, the offer still stands, I&#39;ll swallow

[dakewlguy]

You pussies this is the only forum with any broad debate in anyway.

[Hodgeh]

I&#39;d like to know:

1. For what reasons was I restricted
2. Which admin restricted me
3. How intelligent discussion and debate can arise when the only "discussion" come from the mindless Bush/America haters who do nothing more than stroke each other&#39;s e-cocks with every successive posting.

[1936]

Although this post is going to end up in the twat banning me again....

Ive been on this site for almost a year now....but as you will see my date joined wont indicate this....

That is because i have had to have 4 differnt acounts.

I have nothing but serious and respectful debate with the admins, and have no complaints of any of them....but one.

And all of you who are restricted will know who im talking about....."the anorchist tension"

The reasons for 3 acounts being banned were

1) Swearing in a post (because hes the virgin mary with the innocent mouth)
2) Becoming malicious in a post (its called a debate, not flower time)
3) Youll love this one people...being a nazi&#33;

On the note of the later i would like to bring your attention to the first post in wich it was deemed juvaniel to relate to people as nazis, stalinists, facists.

The posts in wich it would appear him to be correct, is the case of him banning a member, AND THEN carrying on the thread addressing that member like he could still reply, therfor it looks like the member has backed down from the argument.

WE LOVE YOU "THE ANORCHIST TENSTION"&#33;....

[1936]

And before he bans me can i just say


Just get on debating or fuck off.

I dont give a shit

both quotes taken from this page, in this thread, from the anorchist tenstion, yet he goes unpunished

UNLIKE ME&#33; who he deemed suitable to ban permantly, for swearing.

[RedAnarchist]

Was it mild swearing like his, or was it stronger?

[1936]

To the best of my recolection it was nothing more serious or offensive then fuck and shit.

[The Feral Underclass]

I don&#39;t think I banned you. You&#39;ve got the wrong person. Sorry.

[RedAnarchist]

Is there no record which tells you who banned whom and when?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 05:53 PM
Is there no record which tells you who banned whom and when?
There are the admin logs, but it just says &#39;edited member.....&#39;

I have check through my logs and I cannot see any member who, when checked, is banned. Not within the last 1-2 months.

[1936]

I think i remember FAIRLY WELL, the admin that deleted 3 of my acounts.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 05:57 PM
I think i remember FAIRLY WELL, the admin that deleted 3 of my acounts.
Move on...

[1936]

great defence

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 06:39 PM
great defence
I wasn&#39;t defending myself.

[1936]

then what were you doing?

the counter progressive response to actions of offence (not as in insulting) is to defend

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 07:41 PM
then what were you doing?
Giving you advice.

[1936]

Are you giving me advice to drop the fact that you banned me 3 times for reasons that are unclear at the least

Or are your threatning me that you have your heart set on a fourth

[NovelGentry]

That&#39;s why you were banned.

I wasn&#39;t aware we banned people for being misunderstood.

I&#39;m quite sorry I never noticed the original thread on the topic -- What Elmo was saying was quite clear and looks as if his message, even if not worded the best from the start, was distorted quite feverishly to get him banned, for whatever reason (personal, fear, complete misunderstanding, or simply to make an example out of anyone who even wants to mention national socialism).

EDIT: Just to add, I think Elmo was simply trying to explain the actual origins of national socialism as it preceeded naziism. It&#39;s quite clear from his words in no way was he trying to support it, simply trying to clarify it&#39;s original terms from naziism. Just to clarify my own point more, I do realize nazi means national socialist, but what I meant... bah, fuck it, it&#39;s obvious you don&#39;t understand anyway. After all, that&#39;s what got Elmo banned.

[The Feral Underclass]

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...0socialism&st=0 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=32591&hl=national%20socialism&st=0)

That&#39;s why you were banned.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 26 2005, 11:36 AM
http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...0socialism&st=0 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=32591&hl=national%20socialism&st=0)

That&#39;s why you were banned.
Well, he was right to some extent. National Socialism isn&#39;t exactly NAZISM. Though I personally detest both Ideologies, National Socialism was a left-wing political movement before the 1930s. It didn&#39;t necessarily contain any forms of Racism, Sexism, "Racial Purity", Anti-semitism or any of that crap. Though after Adolph Hitler infiltrated the German Workers party as an undercover corporal in the German Army, he began to mutate the idea into the Nazism we all know and love.

So calling Nazism National Socialism is both right and wrong to some extent. And I suppose by definition All socialist nations are National Socialist. I think this guy just explained himself poorly, I don&#39;t think he is a Nazi, just a socialist, maybe a stalinist or Maoist.

Either way, Im not really bothered about his banning.

[1936]

"To pre-answer all predictable replies

- I am not a nazi-Sympathiser, i am completely morally objected to Hitler
- National socialsm does not always mean nazism
- Stalin was not just "paranoid" "

My quote button wont work, but that was at the end of my post.

[NovelGentry]

"To pre-answer all predictable replies

- I am not a nazi-Sympathiser, i am completely morally objected to Hitler
- National socialsm does not always mean nazism
- Stalin was not just "paranoid" "

My quote button wont work, but that was at the end of my post.

Although I&#39;m not sure this is really the place to resolve those questions -- the issue as I see it is that regardless of what you believe, the post is understood as you defending national socialism. This is of course a problem, because any cursory examination of it&#39;s origins and objective statements about it (at least in the eyes of those who banned you) would be taken as defense.

To point out a few things though to the person who said the original national socialist program didn&#39;t contain racism -- to my knowledge this is completely false. There were racial undertones if not direct statements made against Jewish peoples, as well as presenting the idea of racial/national unification. That is afterall what makes it national socialism.

The platform itself is designed out of racism, anti-semitism, etc..etc. And no, I&#39;m not talking about the NSDAP platform, or even changes that were made after the DAP became the DNSAP. The original DAP/Austrian Worker Party platform (which is indeed the foundation of national socialism, if not the total ideology) was very much founded with these things in mind, even if it was never said.

[1936]

Am i still restricted?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by NovelGentry+Mar 26 2005, 12:34 PM--> (NovelGentry &#064; Mar 26 2005, 12:34 PM)
That&#39;s why you were banned.

I wasn&#39;t aware we banned people for being misunderstood. [/b]
What&#39;s all this "we" talk? You have nothing to do with the policy procedures of this board.


The World&#39;s 1st Elmoist
Am i still restricted?

Check your PM&#39;s.

[1936]

yooo its the 29th....

[Guest1]

Gent, please keep in mind that the "sensitivity" of this board to topics such as this is also affected byt he fact tht the server resides in Germany. So, while we are all fiercely anti-Nazi, and have persued such a policy of our own accord, it wouldn&#39;t be a choice even. This is not an issue where we have or can give much lee-way.

TAT will get back to you soon, elmo.

[1936]

I needs me freedom&#33;&#33;&#33;

[1936]

*looks around*...........

The anarchist tenstion sure knows when to pick hes holidays

[The Feral Underclass]

wazzammm&#33;

[rice349]

world&#39;s 1st elmoist should be restricted again becuase he made threats of physical violence towards me...

[1936]

Oh get over it.

Ill send you a card.

[jiujitsu]

Originally posted by Exploited [email protected] 20 2004, 10:30 AM
So, although you might be on pins and needles waiting for a response to a horrific crime that only can be described as an act equal to something
A. Nazis do
B. Fascists do
C. Stalinists do

D. Commies do?

[Rage]

Why am I on Restriction? :lol:

/,,/
Rock on&#33;

[1936]

noooooooooooooooooo&#33;

why am i restricted?&#33;?&#33;?&#33;

[Dre_Guevara]

Some administrator answer me, why am i restricted????? Nobody can give me a straight answer.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

I just did in your closed thread. It&#39;s your homophobia. I am sorry, but homophobia and our social movements just don&#39;t work out. You could try one of the religious movements, ow they love bashing gay people. Have "fun".

[Dre_Guevara]

Originally posted by Non&#045;Sectarian Bastard&#33;@Jun 5 2005, 03:55 AM
I just did in your closed thread. It&#39;s your homophobia. I am sorry, but homophobia and our social movements just don&#39;t work out. You could try one of the religious movements, ow they love bashing gay people. Have "fun".
who the fuck says I&#39;m homophobic??? All I mentioned was that I respect them but I don&#39;t like them or hate them either. It&#39;s merely neutral..i never cursed them out or spammed the threads with ANTI-HOMOSEXUAL remarks. You know what&#39;s funny, is that more than half of the people talk about how fuckin EVIL RELIGION is and write ANTI-CHRISTIAN remarks and I don&#39;t see them being banned or restricted.

People are so fuckin sensitive these days..they don&#39;t know how to handle other people&#39;s opinions if it&#39;s not entirely what they want to hear. It pisses me off. I think it&#39;s the fact that there are a bunch of "immature" teenagers who run this board. Well, you guys gotta deal with it; because along your journey through life you&#39;re going to experience more shit than what you experience here in CYYYBBERRWORLD. <_<

You guys talk about justice and equality and how ANARRRCHISM is the best ideology that can improve humanity and society but yet you ban/restrict members because of their NON-ANARCHISTIC opinions, and not only that..you have ADMINISTRATORS and MODERATORS to RUN the board. What kind of fucked up shit is that? Maybe you should practice what you preach. I thought anarchism is against AUTHORITY??? I know, I know, I know...you might say "well, without administrators or moderators, this message board would not work, etc." AND THEN I SAY...."and what makes you think it&#39;s going to work in the REEEAAAAALLLLL world&#33;?" if it can&#39;t work in cyberworld then how the FUCK is it going to work in realworld? All I am saying is that I&#39;ve never conducted myself to be some HATER of HOMOSEXUALS. That&#39;s where you&#39;re all wrong. Go ahead and ban me for all I care. Just beware, don&#39;t let reality smack you across the face. :che:

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Your quote from the thread Gay marriages (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=35723)


I don&#39;t like gay people, not because the Bible talked about homosexuality, but because I think their sexual habits are filth. And I&#39;m only talking about male homosexuals. Lesbians, I don&#39;t care. Male homos on the otherhand are all degenerates; but they have my pity.


It seems like a clear case of "Christian Love".

You don&#39;t only show off your male chauvanism (by being acceptive of lesbians, but not of homosexuals), but you also show complete (religious) stupidity. Christianity dissaproves of both homosexuality and lesbians. The only reason that you approve lesbians, is because you have sexual fantasies about them. Since when do sexual fantasies form the basis of your politics?


You know what&#39;s funny, is that more than half of the people talk about how fuckin EVIL RELIGION is and write ANTI-CHRISTIAN remarks and I don&#39;t see them being banned or restricted.

Why would these people be banned/restricted? And yes, for the pleasure of both of us: May the Churches burn in a long night of social consciousness, to come closer to enlightment in the morning. We shall dance&#33;


People are so fuckin sensitive these days..they don&#39;t know how to handle other people&#39;s opinions if it&#39;s not entirely what they want to hear. It pisses me off. I think it&#39;s the fact that there are a bunch of "immature" teenagers who run this board. Well, you guys gotta deal with it; because along your journey through life you&#39;re going to experience more shit than what you experience here in CYYYBBERRWORLD. dry.gif

Passionet or uncaring? I know what I choose. Plus I know perfectly how to handle closed-minded homophobes, too bad it hasn&#39;t been carried out. I can perfectly handle well-argumented debates, but how do I say this to a Christian. Umm . . . the bible is not, I repeat not the truth. You can not engage in arguments using the bible as your basis.

Ow, here it comes the strikingblow of your arguments: "you are all immature teenagers&#33;". I bet I have experienced more shit in my life, then your boring Sundayafternoon&#39;s in Church. But I heard that those benches do sit very uncomfortable and that the song&#39;s are a bore to sing. How much I symphatize with you . . . poor soul. Ow and yes, you have been a real example of maturity. Glad I have someone to look up to. Look I learned your trick too:

FUCKIN JESUS CHRIST ON A STICK&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;


You guys talk about justice and equality and how ANARRRCHISM is the best ideology that can improve humanity and society but yet you ban/restrict members because of their NON-ANARCHISTIC opinions, and not only that..you have ADMINISTRATORS and MODERATORS to RUN the board. What kind of fucked up shit is that? Maybe you should practice what you preach. I thought anarchism is against AUTHORITY??? I know, I know, I know...you might say "well, without administrators or moderators, this message board would not work, etc." AND THEN I SAY...."and what makes you think it&#39;s going to work in the REEEAAAAALLLLL world&#33;?" if it can&#39;t work in cyberworld then how the FUCK is it going to work in realworld? All I am saying is that I&#39;ve never conducted myself to be some HATER of HOMOSEXUALS. That&#39;s where you&#39;re all wrong. Go ahead and ban me for all I care. Just beware, don&#39;t let reality smack you across the face. che.gif

lol - Don&#39;t make yourself more then you are. There are Maoists and Stalinists in CC. The site-admin, most mods/admins and members aren&#39;t anarchist. You are a freaking HOMOPHOBE. Remember that, don&#39;t make yourself in a martyr or whatever. Just remember, you are a freaking HOMOPHOBE&#33; You are restricted, because you are a reactionairy&#33;

This is a revolutionary leftist board. Hence the name. So what do you suggest we do? Give everyone modpowers, deprive everyone or elect people. Oh, oh&#33; Isn&#39;t that already what is done? Anyway thanks for your constructive criticism, I bet the pope would enjoy your pleads for democracy. Anyway, this isn&#39;t an Anarchist board.

Don&#39;t worry, reality has been kinder to materialists then religionists. Shush hone, you know why Christians fall off cliffs?

[Dre_Guevara]

you must think i&#39;m a devoted conservative Christian..you got it all wrong. You sound like a fucking FAGGOT. Why don&#39;t you do us a favor and kill yourself before you fucking poison our children and make them all out to be degenerates such as yourself and the rest of your hooligans -- the FUCKING COCKSUCKING BALL-LICKERS.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

I don&#39;t know what to make of it, is it extremely bad sarcasm with no porpuse at all or just plain old "Christian love"?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 10:32 AM
you must think i&#39;m a devoted conservative Christian..you got it all wrong. You sound like a fucking FAGGOT. Why don&#39;t you do us a favor and kill yourself before you fucking poison our children and make them all out to be degenerates such as yourself and the rest of your hooligans -- the FUCKING COCKSUCKING BALL-LICKERS.
Enjoy Opposing Ideologies. You will be here a while.

[Dre_Guevara]

I don&#39;t know what to make of it, is it extremely bad sarcasm with no porpuse at all or just plain old "Christian love"?

It&#39;s neither queer&#33;


Enjoy Opposing Ideologies. You will be here a while.

And fuck you very much, faggot.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Wouldn&#39;t fuckin "faggots" make you gay too? Is this Christian logic?

[chaval]

i dont understand why i got banned for saying that id rather vote for the canadian conservative party (which is more leftist that the democrats mind you) than the NDP which ruined the economy where i lived cause there policies sucked. also someone said i got banned for dissing castro. so what? lots of commies think castro sucks. thinking castro is bad doesnt make me a capitalist. its like saying that if you dont like stalin then your a nazi. theres no logic to it
so again, why am i banned?

[LSD]

why am i banned?

Firstly, you were not banned; secondly, restriction is not a "punishment", it&#39;s just a method used to focus the debate.

The reason, in this case, that you were banned was because you indicated that you support the Canadian Conservative Party, a right-centrist conservative party.


i dont understand why i got banned for saying that id rather vote for the canadian conservative party (which is more leftist that the democrats mind you) than the NDP which ruined the economy where i lived cause there policies sucked.

The Canadian Conservative Party is no "more leftist than the democrats". Some of its members are more progressive than some American Democrats, but in no way can the term "leftist" be applied to the CP.

I can&#39;t speak to your "local" experience with the NDP; but if you truly have "personal" reasons to oppose them, why not support the Communist party or the socialist party? Why not just not vote if you find bourgeois politics to be distatesful?

The fact that you have chosen to not only participate in bourgeois elections, but to vote for the most conservative party on the ballot is very indicative that your politics are not compatible with the revolutionary left.

[LoneRed]

look at all these people upping their post counts with this useless drivel

[chaval]

Why not just not vote if you find bourgeois politics to be distatesful?


well actually i chose not to vote so...


Canadian Conservative Party is no "more leftist than the democrats"
yes it is


chosen to not only participate in bourgeois elections, but to vote for the most conservative party on the ballot

except i didn&#39;t

why didn&#39;t i vote for the communist party? well first of all i didn&#39;t vote, secondly if i had there are several reasons mainly the canadian system works on a first past the post system. so only the candidates with the majority of votes get elected, everyone else (including second place) gets nothing. and where i live believe me, the commies will never even get close. so basically i got banned for my personal decision to vote for the conservative party (which i didnt even do) when the only other viable option was the liberal party who are bunch of crooks as bad as or worse than the conservatives. secondly, canada is....canada&#33; when i got outside and walk in the streets i just dont feel like theres some massive proletariate being terribly opressed. talk to me about latin america (my real home) and then we can talk about real opression

banning me for showing a preference to one party over another sounds like a lot of stalinism to me no offense. where you can only vote for one party. why not just ban everyone who doesnt join communist/ socialist protests and stay at home instead?

[LSD]

well actually i chose not to vote so...

Whatever, I can&#39;t confirm whether or not you actually voted, nor does it really even matter.

All that&#39;s important in terms of this forum is what you post on this forum; and in this case you posted support for the Canadian Conservative Party, again, a conservative center-right party who&#39;s views are diametrically opposed to the revolutionary left.


the canadian system works on a first past the post system. so only the candidates with the majority of votes get elected, everyone else (including second place) gets nothing.

I agree with you that the Candian election system is rubbish, but that&#39;s why I don&#39;t vote. It&#39;s also why I don&#39;t support any current political party, not even the "leftist" ones.

I certainly would never indicate support for the Conservatives&#33;


banning me for showing a preference to one party over another sounds like a lot of stalinism to me no offense.

What nonsense.

Again, you have not been "banned", you have been restricted.

This was done because you expressed support for a conservative political party. Supporting conservative causes is not grounds in and of itself for banning, but it certainly is justification for restriction.

[chaval]

genereally supporting conservative parties is mst definately grounds for restriction. but the question i answered was about canadian politics and i merely offered a practical answer. i think its reasonable to say that only liberal party and conservative party should be considered in my riding and like i said before liberals are no good either and hardly communist so should i be restricted for saying liberal party is good too? after all they most certainly dont advocate that the workers seize all the means of production.
waht im trying to say is that i supported the CANADIAN conservative party, not any other one, and only because (realistically) there arent any other better parties (in my opinion).
if the question had been something like, " should all canadians vote for the communist party and dismantle non-communist parties such as 99% of them?" then taht would be different

[Salvador Allende]

Why am I restricted?&#33; I have done nothing but lay support down for Marxist-Leninist parties, lines and organisations as any Communist can do. It is foolish to put someone as a restricted member simply because they support Marxism-Leninism and stand up for fraternal Marxist-Leninist parties and Marxist-Leninist lines. I have committed no crime, I have not stood for Fascism or Christian Identity or any other reactionary ideology, I have simply stood in a Communist manour and I would like to know what crime I stand "restricted" from.

[ernestolynch]

Originally posted by Salvador [email protected] 12 2006, 12:04 AM
Why am I restricted?&#33; I have done nothing but lay support down for Marxist-Leninist parties, lines and organisations as any Communist can do. It is foolish to put someone as a restricted member simply because they support Marxism-Leninism and stand up for fraternal Marxist-Leninist parties and Marxist-Leninist lines. I have committed no crime, I have not stood for Fascism or Christian Identity or any other reactionary ideology, I have simply stood in a Communist manour and I would like to know what crime I stand "restricted" from.
Che Guevara would have been "restricted" here, so don&#39;t worry too much about it&#33;

[fernando]

worship the doctrine, suck up and dont you dare question or disagree with certain aspect...you will be branded a "reactionary" :ph34r:

[Ice]

Why am I restricted?

[Lord Testicles]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 10:55 AM
Why am I restricted?
It is because you are anti-choice.

[Ice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 11:14 AM
It is because you are anti-choice.
Why?

[fernando]

I thought communists didnt really believe in totall free choice...you might resist the Greater Good...

[Ice]

What is this a communist discussion board or a place for childish groupism? So far I have been very dedicated and I have made decent discussions in this board and no one cares to give a proper reply to my question.

I have communicated with one of the administrators and all he can say was that I was restricted just because my views about abortion were wrong; he thinks that I have made some statement against women on the whole. I have great respect for women and I never indented to talk bad about them. If you think that my ideas regarding abortion were wrong then all you have to do is counter me ideologically but you guys never took any actions to discuss about the particular subject and the worst part is you have trashed the particular thread, which is total ignorance.

I never talked about women rights or anything all I have said was, killing a child before if was born just because of its sex is wrong and this has nothing to do with women. Restricting me just because one of those cc members who was discussing in that particular thread thought I was against women on the whole is, not fair. I would just like to tell her that, don’t hide behind your cc clown’s, if you think anything is wrong try to counter it ideologically rather than hiding and one more thing, I want a clear reply from the administrators this time and I don’t want any cc guys to waste my time and I am ready to discuss about the controversial topic.

[Lord Testicles]

You said


Abortion is killing and killing should be prohibited

and that is anti-choice, and anyone who is anti-choice is restricted, board rules.

[cyu]

and that is anti-choice, and anyone who is anti-choice is restricted, board rules.

I&#39;m no pro-lifer but why is this rule there? It&#39;s a little strange that a board that should be primarily concerned with economics should care about abortion so much. It seems to me that they&#39;re basically unrelated issues. Was this a policy adopted by the CC? If so, I guess you can run the forum however you want, even if it is a bit strange.

I guess you could argue that abortion is a right as far as anarchist theory is concerned, but for non-anarchist communists, I don&#39;t see how this relates to their theory.

[Sentinel]

Communism is about far more than economics, to me atleast. It&#39;s the theory of the liberation of the working class. And I&#39;m very happy to have found a message board where the majority believes that liberation should be total.

Not only from wage-slavery, but like redstar2000 usually puts it, "all the old crap".
Being anti-choice is definitely an unacceptably reactionary stance, one real communists are opposed to.

[LSD]

Why am I restricted?&#33; I have done nothing but lay support down for Marxist-Leninist parties, lines and organisations as any Communist can do.

Perhaps, but while you were doing that, you seem to have found the time to say the following:

Originally posted by emphasis added
Homosexuality is still treated as a mental disorder in China in some forms, I forget what they still maintain from the analysis, but I have heard that many have been then-classified as being Anti-Social. Nonetheless, I tend to agree with the stance on homosexuality seeing the vast majority as within the confines of mental disorders with some and many of the "homosexual rights activists" being Capitalist roaders attempting to instill a Capitalist morality.


I&#39;m no pro-lifer but why is this rule there? It&#39;s a little strange that a board that should be primarily concerned with economics should care about abortion so much.

We don&#39;t care about abortion exclusively, we care about liberation.

And we are certainly concerned about more than economics. Sexists, racist, homophobes, etc... are all restricted even though their biggotry has nothing to do with economics or class.

Prejeduced or "anti-choice" "socialists" may occasionaly have something useful to post, but if so, they can do it in OI. The rest of the forum&#39;s for actual progressive leftists and their tired reactionary garbage has no place there.


I want a clear reply from the administrators this time

You were restricted because on March 19, 2006, the CC voted 38 - 5 in favour of restricting all "pro-lifers" and you fit that category.

"Clear" enough? :)

[Ice]

We don&#39;t care about abortion exclusively, we care about liberation.

I do care about liberation and what made you think that I don’t?

[QUOTE]You were restricted because on March 19, 2006, the CC voted 38 - 5 in favour of restricting all "pro-lifers" and you fit that category.

"Clear" enough?

No. I don’t care about what the cc members think, all I want to know is how I am against women in this issue and why should you ban me rather than discussing about the particular subject with me?

[Ice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 06:15 PM
You said


Abortion is killing and killing should be prohibited

and that is anti-choice, and anyone who is anti-choice is restricted, board rules.
So, what are you trying to tell here, killing should not be prohibited or are you trying to tell that abortion is not killing?

[Sentinel]

all I want to know is how I am against women in this issue

It&#39;s a woman&#39;s decision what to do with anything that&#39;s inside her. As anti-choice you want to force her to carry a child she doesn&#39;t want, correct? That&#39;s claiming control over someone else&#39;s body. Communists don&#39;t accept that. :angry:


and why should you ban me rather than discussing about the particular subject with me?

You&#39;ve been restricted, not banned.


So, what are you trying to tell here, killing should not be prohibited or are you trying to tell that abortion is not killing?

We are saying that it&#39;s about the woman, not the undeveloped fetus. We care about actual people, rather than a bunch of cells stuck together that could become a human being. It&#39;s really quite simple.

For me, the question here is: Why are you anti-choice? What moral code leads you to that conclusion? Real communists deny morals in favor of rationality. I&#39;d say this is where your real problem lies. :(

[Lord Testicles]

Originally posted by Ice+Apr 15 2006, 09:34 AM--> (Ice @ Apr 15 2006, 09:34 AM)
[email protected] 14 2006, 06:15 PM
You said


Abortion is killing and killing should be prohibited

and that is anti-choice, and anyone who is anti-choice is restricted, board rules.
So, what are you trying to tell here, killing should not be prohibited or are you trying to tell that abortion is not killing? [/b]
Yeah that’s right a bunch of congregated cells are not a human being and therefore is not killing.

"OMG&#33;&#33;&#33;1 ur killing cells u murderer&#33;&#33;&#33;" :rolleyes:

[bezdomni]

I think the weight of Ice&#39;s restriction was because of his homophobic comment (homosexuality is a mental disorder) as opposed to his anti-choice stance.

Of course, both of these warrant a restriction.

Just so you know, very few psychiatrists consider homosexuality a mental disorder. It was taken off the DSM in the 1970s. Your stance is inherently regressive, from a scientific point of view.

[Lord Testicles]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 06:46 PM
I think the weight of Ice&#39;s restriction was because of his homophobic comment (homosexuality is a mental disorder) as opposed to his anti-choice stance.

Yeah i know that now but when he asked originaly the first thing i saw in the CC was a thread about him being anti-choice, so thats what i assumed it was.

Considering his stance on both issues it just seems he is rectionary and will be in here for some time.

[KC]

If you&#39;re against abortion, then you might as well be against masturbation, as it kills all those sperm, and they could become human&#33; Or against contraceptives for the same reason. You could even support female circumcision, as when people have sex for pleasure that is when they use the contraceptives and kill all those potental human lives&#33;

The anti-choice position is so illogical. :rolleyes:

[Salvador Allende]

Ridiculous, Comrade Stalin took a correct line against abortion, noting that it promoted the individual greed and the overall "do what feels good" attitude of Capitalism and not Socialist responsibility. In Socialism, birth control is most times, free, how then can we promote the Capitalist ways to continue? To support abortion in all circumstances (some are very understandable) is to support the basic moral attitude of Capitalism and the Social and Economic structures of every country are inherently linked and one cannot live without the other. It is the reversal of many Socialist policies in Social areas which may have lead to the Revisionism of the Soviet Union and then paved the way for the restoration of Capitalism.

[VermontLeft]

hey i didnt know that antiabortioners get restricted but sounds like a great idea to me.,

as i see there even worse then capitalisst. at least the capitalists dont want to get in your body :angry:

[LSD]

Ridiculous, Comrade Stalin took a correct line against abortion

"Comrade Stalin" very rarely took the "correct line" and this case is no exception.

Womens right to abortion is absolute. We were not aware of your position on this issue when we restricted you (that was solely due to your homophobia), but I now see that it was an even more justiable decision than I had thought.

"Pro-lifers" are not welcome on Revleft. :angry:


noting that it promoted the individual greed and the overall "do what feels good" attitude of Capitalism

Firstly, individual sovereignty does not promote "greed" it promotes liberty and secondly, "do what feels good" is a pretty good description of what communist society will be&#33;

The reason that we seek the end of wage-slavery is not solely to remove exploitative economic relationships but to free the proletariat of coersion and control.

Indeed, classless society will be by definition a "do what feels good" (within reason) society&#33;

People will be doctors "if they feel like it".
People will be firemen "if they feel like it".
People will make cars "if they feel like it".

If you cannot accept that then you clearly are not the "orthodox Marxist-Leninist" you think you are.


To support abortion in all circumstances (some are very understandable) is to support the basic moral attitude of Capitalism

No, actually, it&#39;s to "support the basic moral attitude" of communism -- namely that "morals" are bunk&#33;

Revolutionaries have no patience for superstitious "ethics". We rely on reason and rationality exlusively&#33;

And reasonably speaking there is no justification for state intervention in a mother&#39;s womb. Once a child is outside of her, it&#39;s society&#39;s business, but until then it is a part of her body and no one&#39;s business but hers.

A state will not "wither away" if it&#39;s busy controlling people&#39;s bodies. A "workers state" that has no respect for actual workers is nothing but Stalinism.

But then, as I understand it, you were a fan... <_<

[Salvador Allende]

Comrade Stalin took a correct line the vast majority of all times. A phobia is an irrational fear by the very definition. I am not afraid of homosexuals and hence the fear cannot be irrational, because it does not exist. My position on homosexuality is based on upholding what I think is a correct line by the ruling Communist Parties of the world today and supporting the actions of our brothers who are building Socialism.

I severely disagree. Doing only what feels good leads to nothing but irresponsibility and greed for the individual interest and not the collective interest by it&#39;s very nature it does nothing but promote individualism over the collective, which is not Communist, but Capitalist. It promotes the same values of Capitalism, which are that of greed and over-individualism. I disagree that this issue constitutes an aspect of liberty at all.

Stalinism is not an ideology, Comrade Stalin brought nothing to the table that Comrade Lenin did not before him, he merely followed a Marxist-Leninist line which I believe was 70% correct at any given moment. Rationally speaking, anything which promotes over-individualism has no purpose in a Communist society and promoting such in Socialism will do nothing but deteriorate the ideological fabric of the country, leaving it&#39;s people very open to coercion by the Capitalists. Ideological work is incredibly important in all fields and is almost as important as economic work. Many Comrades, but most notably Kim Jong Il and Mao Tse-tung have pointed out how important the ideological field is and you seem to ignore that Social issues fit into this sphere. For everything is connected, ideology, economy etc. It is all connected and what affects one will eventually effect the other. By making moves which promote Capitalism, you encourage Capitalism overall and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is jeapordized.

The question of whether or not the state withers away is not one to discuss now, nor can you even provide decent logic of taking a Socialist stance in the social realm destroying the capacity for Communism. Communism requires an extremely advanced produtive force, far more advanced than the most advanced Capitalist countries and no Socialist country has achieved that yet, so it is not even realistic to talk about such. Rather, what we must know and accept is that within Socialism if you promote the Capitalist style of thought, it will infect others and will open the door to Revisionism and the Capitalist restoration. Abortion is correct in several situations including when the mother&#39;s life is threatened by the process of childbirth (which will become substantially less and will make this less of a factor), in the case of rape or perhaps in the case that a family already has far too many children (this should nonetheless be punished, because it means ignoring the free birthcontrol the state should have and is very much irresponsibility).

If you are to talk about population, then there are other methods including the providement of free birthcontrol by the state, which already occurs in most Socialist countries and has slowed down the population growth in those countries drastically and also the act of setting family planning laws such as the "one child policy" of the 1980s Socialist China. In that case you could argue the restriction of how many children you can have constitutes the exact same "infringement of freedom" that the lack of abortion does, but I don&#39;t expect you to make that argument.

Lastly, I find it ironic that this board is called "Revolutionary Left" and was once called "Che Lives", for El Che was an admirer of Comrade Stalin and held views very close to my own and his views deeply affected the PCC&#39;s views of such issues. The Revolutionary Left, that is, the left actually involved in the Revolutionary act of building Socialism and advancing towards Communism, has most often agreed with me on these issues and thus, your views tend to not fall within the left, but within Libertarianist Capitalism which advocates a complete "do what feels good" attitude in all spheres and hence, moral nihilism and Capitalism.

[Black Dagger]

My position on homosexuality is based on upholding what I think is a correct line by the ruling Communist Parties of the world today and supporting the actions of our brothers who are building Socialism.

Your position is in some areas a bit vague, can you please answer some questions?

What is your position on homosexuality?

What are the treatment methods used by the Chinese govt. in dealing with homosexuals that have a mental disorder? Do you support these methods?

How are homosexual capitalist agents treated? Do you support this treatment?

Do/did you support the breaking up of gay pride parades in China?

Thank you.

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by SA
Lastly, I find it ironic that this board is called "Revolutionary Left" and was once called "Che Lives", for El Che was an admirer of Comrade Stalin and held views very close to my own and his views deeply affected the PCC&#39;s views of such issues. The Revolutionary Left, that is, the left actually involved in the Revolutionary act of building Socialism and advancing towards Communism, has most often agreed with me on these issues and thus, your views tend to not fall within the left, but within Libertarianist Capitalism which advocates a complete "do what feels good" attitude in all spheres and hence, moral nihilism and Capitalism.


I find it ironic that a muslim thinks he has more in common theoretically with Che and Stalin than a Marxist.

[bezdomni]

Che was an admirer of Stalin because he was unaware of many of the crimes Stalin committed. Che was, if anything more than Marxist-Leninist, a Maoist.

I recall a story when Che was having dinner with party officials in the USSR, he asked them "is this how the average Russian eats?" because he was disgusted by how much better off the bureaucrats were than the proletariat.

Stalin was a traitor to Marxism-Leninism, and I am glad you are restricted "Salvador".

[Oh-Dae-Su]

hi,

well i don&#39;t really like making big deal about my restriction in fact i accept it, and the warnings iv gotten no matter how bias iv obviously felt they have been never really comed here and protested either...but if there is something which i find is really inapropriate and should be taken action towards is when an administrator who obviously dislikes you and changes one of your personal information etc... for example, my Member Title was changed from the one iv always had Anaxagoras, now someone changed it into PROUD GUSANO....this is really inapropriate , i think that any administrator who reads my post and has consideration and overlooks our political differences should take action....im pretty sure i know who it was....im positive , and i got the proof:

redstar2000:


Note further that poor Oh-Dae-Su comes from a gusano family...who probably think Castro practices cannibalism. The gusano view of the world is so totally wacko that one would have to visit one their sites to believe it...no verbal description could do it justice.

In fact, you could make it into an excellent fantasy role-playing game

my response:


even though that&#39;s pretty insulting to me, i don&#39;t take it to the heart because i know most Cubans in Cuba feel the same way as i do, we all want a change of government, but gusano is an insulting word to me, it means worm, but at least i wouldn&#39;t give more privileges to foreigners than to my own people, thats a real gusano, Fidel is a real worm, how can anyone in ther right mind give more rights to foreign tourists than to their own people, and quite frankly redstar you sicken me, because that is obviously what you stand for and what you believe, so yeah keep calling me and others who believe in freedom and democracy gusanos, good always prevails just like in a role playing game

his response? none after that ^^ i guess he decided changing my Member Title was his only option of getting back at me since he didn&#39;t have any arguments left in him...

it can all be found here : http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...pic=49646&st=25 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=49646&st=25)

thank you

[BurnTheOliveTree]

TAT and Midnight - *****ing aside, your typos really are quite bewildering. :P

-Alex

[BurnTheOliveTree]

TAT and Midnight - *****ing aside, your typos really are quite bewildering. :P

-Alex

[BurnTheOliveTree]

TAT and Midnight - *****ing aside, your typos really are quite bewildering. :P

-Alex

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 05:40 PM
TAT and Midnight - *****ing aside, your typos really are quite bewildering. :P

-Alex
What? :unsure:

[bl&#33;ng]

Hey,

I was just restricted, and I&#39;m going to take a stab in the dark and say that it was this (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=52729) thread that did it. In this thread I was merely stating my opinion, and asking for the general opinion of socialists/communitst so I could analyze their opinion.

I can see where you think I came off as anti-abortion. Even though I said in the first post that I was anti-murder, I wasn&#39;t saying that it was correct. I was merely stating that it was my opinion and I wanted to learn what other people&#39;s opinions were on the matter so I could learn where/if I was at fault. Probably why I posted it in the learning forum.

As you can see from the thread I wasn&#39;t trying to impose my ideas on anybody. There was a good, healthy debate going on and I was actually learning a lot. Now, however, I can&#39;t respond to the thread which kinda restricts the learning process.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by bl&#33;ng
I can see where you think I came off as anti-abortion. Even though I said in the first post that I was anti-murder, I wasn&#39;t saying that it was correct.

This is precisely the problem, by taking the stance from the outset that abortion is &#39;murder&#39; you&#39;re automatically framing the discussion from an anti-choice point of view.

Why would anyone support &#39;murder&#39; on demand? That is what - in the language that you use - a pro-choice position amounts too, and that is an absurd characterisation.

[bl&#33;ng]

Originally posted by Black Dagger+Jul 17 2006, 06:27 AM--> (Black Dagger @ Jul 17 2006, 06:27 AM)
bl&#33;ng
I can see where you think I came off as anti-abortion. Even though I said in the first post that I was anti-murder, I wasn&#39;t saying that it was correct.

This is precisely the problem, by taking the stance from the outset that abortion is &#39;murder&#39; you&#39;re automatically framing the discussion from an anti-choice point of view.

Why would anyone support &#39;murder&#39; on demand? That is what - in the language that you use - a pro-choice position amounts too, and that is an absurd characterisation. [/b]
Here&#39;s my take on it.

1. The forum is called "Learning"

2. I never stated that I was right, or that anybody should believe me.

3. If you live in the USA, and you&#39;re in this forum, I can take a wild guess at how you learn. You learn by not accepting everything that is/was taught to you in schools, you asked questions. If you accepted everything you&#39;d be posting on Capitalismiscool.com

4. Now, why would you think the "Learning" forum is any different? It&#39;s not called "Teaching", is it? If it was, then the implication would be to be taught, but since it is a "Learning" forum, the implication is to learn.

5. My implication in starting the thread was to learn. Therefore, I asked questions. I debated, which is how I form my opinions. I do not sit idly and get spoonfed information, as I know none of you did or you would not be here.

If you want it to be a teaching forum, name it "Teaching."

[Avtomatov]

I want to be unrestricted.

Now i only support eugenics when its the sterilization of individuals with serious inheritable diseases which cause suffering. How is that an opposing ideology.

Historically eugenics supporters can be found in both the left wing and right wing. So it is definately not opposed to revolutionary leftism.

I want to be unrestricted. And make sure everyone voting on whether i be unrestricted knows what ive said here.

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

*Removed*

[Avtomatov]

I should say i never actually beleived we should sterilize stupid people. I should probably be more careful to only say things i actually think should be done.

I also sometimes like to argue points i dont agree with just to learn.

[RedAnarchist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 10:39 PM
I should say i never actually beleived we should sterilize stupid people. I should probably be more careful to only say things i actually think should be done.

I also sometimes like to argue points i dont agree with just to learn.
If you didn&#39;t belive it, why not say so before you posted all that crap? It sounds like you just want to be unrestricted.

[deadk]

Any chance I could be unrestricted, I want to post in the philosphy section again. I haven&#39;t written anything offensive.

[Aeturnal Narcosis]

alright. i posted this earlier in a different board, having not read the rules, and it was removed. i copied and pasted:

LSD - I&#39;m calling you out.

it&#39;s time to knuckle up.

let me bring this out into the open so everyone can witness this, and see what kind of "communist" you really are.

I posted on
this page (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=58811&st=0?entry1292212852).


then put me on restricted status like some kind of rightwinger.

instead of either telling me that was the wrong thread to debate that topic in, or instead of splitting the thread and putting it in the right column, you restricted me.

but most of all... rather than debating the topic, you restricted me. because you disagree with my interpretation of how communism has evolved over the years, you restrict me. because you think that, if a communist doesn&#39;t completely agree with you on every subject, then that communist isn&#39;t really a true communist, you restricted me.

like an opressive tyrant with a love of abusing his powers...

so if you really do consider yourself a communist... consider this:

in the soviet union, Iosef Vissionariovich Djusgashvilli (Joseph Stalin) purged the communist party of every communist who disagreed with him on anything; every single bolshevik who said that, "hey, maybe we should try this instead, and see how it works out" was executed or exiled; every communist who said, "well, you know... that&#39;s a good idea... but maybe you&#39;ll find this idea interesting" was executed of exiled.

Lev Davidovich Bronstein (Leon Trotsky) was exiled from the soviet union because he disagreed with some of Joseph Stalin&#39;s policies, and was later assassinated by a stalinist.

no true communist would ever exile another communist for disagreeing with him; a true communist welcomes debate.[/COLOR][/B]

[C_Rasmussen]

Who the fuck deleted my post?

[Black Dagger]

Nobody, posts were lost while the board was down, malte had to use a previous backup.

[C_Rasmussen]

^ Aye. Fair enough

Anyway though I want my restriction revoked because

A: The supposed sexism wasn&#39;t sexism. It was just me telling it how it is from my experiences.

B: I&#39;m not a very political poster because I find learning politics too difficult to get a hang of yet I like posting here and responding if I feel theres something half way relevant to say.

Please understand where I&#39;m coming from here.

[Aeturnal Narcosis]

well... i have come to the conclusion that: some of the admins here enjoy abusing their power, and for the most part, are opressive "communists." if you disagree with them about anything, they put you on restriction, no matter how leftist your ideas are.

i was restricted because i said that communism can support free trade. LSD labeled me a capitalist (if anything, saying that communism can support a free trade economy, as long as the workers are in charge, is SOCIALIST - not capitalist).

LSD is a dumbfuck.

i suggest all people here who ARE socialists or Communists join Communist League (http://www.communistleague.org). there are less members, essentially no right-wingers, and much greater freedom to discuss, even somewhat contraversial communist theories.

[Intellectual47]

Hello, I am a new member who recently tried to make a decent thread about Socialism&#39;s severe shortcomings. But, because Mod The Anarchist Tensions did not agree with my thread, he had it closed on trumped up charges of insulting. He also banned a thread, where I was asking socialists to prove that Socialism wasn&#39;t evil, because he found it "boring" and "stupid", among other things.

I belive that these threads were unfairly closed because being "boring" is not a reason to shut a thread down. Nor is calling someone&#39;s ideas "stupid"(which I&#39;ll admit to doing) when Socialist are calling people Mother****ers.

I believe that the moderaters are intellegent people who think a good forum reguires all sides of an issue and that these closings are nothing more than censorship and intimidation.

If you wish to see what The Anarchist Tension said in the closings, the threads were "History Lesson" and "Prove me wrong" in the "opposing idealogies" section

I hope that this problem is fixed according to the ideals of socialism and human rights.

[Aeturnal Narcosis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2006 02:42 pm
Hello, I am a new member who recently tried to make a decent thread about Socialism&#39;s severe shortcomings. But, because Mod The Anarchist Tensions did not agree with my thread, he had it closed on trumped up charges of insulting. He also banned a thread, where I was asking socialists to prove that Socialism wasn&#39;t evil, because he found it "boring" and "stupid", among other things.

I belive that these threads were unfairly closed because being "boring" is not a reason to shut a thread down. Nor is calling someone&#39;s ideas "stupid"(which I&#39;ll admit to doing) when Socialist are calling people Mother****ers.

I believe that the moderaters are intellegent people who think a good forum reguires all sides of an issue and that these closings are nothing more than censorship and intimidation.

If you wish to see what The Anarchist Tension said in the closings, the threads were "History Lesson" and "Prove me wrong" in the "opposing idealogies" section

I hope that this problem is fixed according to the ideals of socialism and human rights.
well, unfortunately, even socialists like myself are limited in what we can say here.

all i can say is this: be careful where you post at... if you believe socialism is evil, you&#39;ll definately be restricted (look at me: i see socialism as the only way to free the workers from exploitation, and i was restricted because an admin disagreed with one of my socialist ideas)

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2006 03:42 pm
But, because Mod The Anarchist Tensions did not agree with my thread, he had it closed on trumped up charges of insulting.
Let&#39;s lay down some ground rules and then every time you people feel like posting, you can refer to them and then you will know what to do.

1) I am the evil anarchist tyrant who controls this forum and you will obey everything I say.

2) Normal members can call you names, insult your mothers, respond, ignore or belittle your posts...You lot, however, cannot do the same.

3) I will dish out warning points like candy to you people so be very careful what you say because it doesn&#39;t take much.

4) In regards to rule 3 - I can, at my discretion alter the rules in which warning points are given, meaning you may receive a warning point for absolutely no reason other than the fact I am 1) having a shit day 2) bored or 3) Trying to impress someone.

5) Remember rule 1 because it is very important. I am like your god when you come into this forum and I watch everything you do and say for the sole purpose of finding excuses to harass you, issue you with warning points or suspend your accounts.

6) You will refer to me as The Glorious Leader The Anarchist Tension - If you do not adhere to this rule you will receive a warning point.

7) You will remain happy and upbeat at all times because I don&#39;t want you making all those nice free roaming members depressed by your incessant whinings and moanings.

8) You are not entitled to question my decisions or be unhappy about them at any time under any circumstances on pain of warning points and perhaps account suspensions depending on what mood I&#39;m in

9) If you are a hot young boy, you may have a very slim chance of being in my favour.

10) You will respect and adore me

Other than that, enjoy your posting here and have fun.

[Aeturnal Narcosis]

1) I am the evil anarchist tyrant

lol.... oxymoron?


2) Normal members can call you names, insult your mothers, respond, ignore or belittle your posts...You lot, however, cannot do the same.

i reckon most of us on restriction are dumb enough to be bothered by insults and such... but what is unfair is that a few of us do NOT belong on restriction, such as myself. my leftist beliefs are as follows: communist society, socialist economy, democratic government.


3) I will dish out warning points like candy to you people so be very careful what you say because it doesn&#39;t take much.

i think i need some of my medicine :)


8) You are not entitled to question my decisions or be unhappy about them at any time under any circumstances on pain of warning points and perhaps account suspensions depending on what mood I&#39;m in

well, without questioning your decisions, i would like to discuss: A) getting my normal user status back, B) anarchy vs. established government, C) beer vs. whiskey, and D) traditional (conservative) vs. modern (progressive) communist and socialist philosophy

[RebelDog]

Aeturnal Narcosis

i would like to discuss: A) getting my normal user status back

Why specifically were you restricted?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 03, 2006 02:56 pm
Aeturnal Narcosis

i would like to discuss: A) getting my normal user status back

Why specifically were you restricted?
He has a hard on for the free market. I.e he&#39;s a capitalist.

[Intellectual47]

TAT I&#39;m amazed. You found the missing last page of Mao&#39;s Little Red Book. I&#39;m impressed.

[The Feral Underclass]

Don&#39;t have political discussions in this thread. Thanks :)

[harris0]

Clealy I have offended the thought police in some way...but I don&#39;t know how. Why am I restricted? It says nothing in my Warning notes.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2006 04:23 pm
Clealy I have offended the thought police in some way...but I don&#39;t know how. Why am I restricted? It says nothing in my Warning notes.
You were restricted by a vote of the commie club, which makes up a large majority of active board members. It was democratic - isn&#39;t that nice and ironic.

Also saying "thought police" in relation to an internet messageboard makes you look like a stupid kid with no sense of proportion.

[chimx]

you haven&#39;t answered the question as to why he was restricted.

[Jazzratt]

Because he&#39;s a liberal democrat rather than a revolutionary.

[chimx]

links?

[Jazzratt]

Just because he has a hard on for "democracy" doesn&#39;t mean he&#39;s a revolutionary. (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?act=Search&nav=au&CODE=show&searchid=7da651a6cfeb5b3957d752106ac34d73&search_in=posts&result_type=posts)

[The Feral Underclass]

Please try very hard not to have political discussions in this thread.

[Senor Jimi]

For what was I restricted?

[Senor Jimi]

Hello? Anyone? Why am I still restricted?

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Not quite sure, it&#39;s not mentioned in the Mod or Admin action threads, and the only post you made before your restriction doesn&#39;t merit a restriction as far as I can see. Maybe I&#39;m wrong about that though and you may have been restricted for your views on Saddam&#39;s hanging. Alternatively a mod could have seen your name and restricted you not realizing that it was a "joke", although I think had they actually thought you supported the KKK you would&#39;ve been banned. Or, it may have just been a mistake. Either way, the best way to get it sorted is to be patient and wait for a response from a mod or admin. Starting stupid threads like "jasmine is a racist" is tantamount to trolling, and will most likely get you banned.

[Senor Jimi]

I PMed LSD and we cleared the jasmine bit up. I apologized for misinterpreting what she said and making a false accusation. I truly hope my view on Saddam&#39;s hanging did not affect my status here; my view was anti-imperialist and anti-eletist, which I thought some comrades here might agree with. LSD told me that I was restricted due to a mere suspicion that I am a racist troll. Although I can understand why they might be suspicious based on my name, I am in truth neither a filthy racist nor a troll. I hope this gets cleared up quickly, as there is much I hope to be able to bring to and learn from your community.

[Janus]

LSD told me that I was restricted due to a mere suspicion that I am a racist troll. Although I can understand why they might be suspicious based on my name, I am in truth neither a filthy racist nor a troll. I hope this gets cleared up quickly, as there is much I hope to be able to bring to and learn from your community.
Well, in that case, perhaps you should change your username then?

[Senor Jimi]

Okay..the name is changed. Now how would I go about getting my restriction lifted so that I can take part in the forum discussions?

[LSD]

Although I can understand why they might be suspicious based on my name, I am in truth neither a filthy racist nor a troll.

I can&#39;t speak to the former, but you are most certainly the latter.

That&#39;s why you are now banned.

[Delirium]

Owned

[Rasta Sapian]

Hi Admin&#39;s, Members, and Banned Members alike,

I too was banned quite a while ago for my ignorant remarks, most likely, anti-gay, and all together rude.

I just want to appologize for what i said, and I am sorry if i offended anyone.

I origionally came here to meet like minded people, who believed in socialism, utilitarianism, and admired the great minds, like: Marx, Lenin, Mao, and Che&#33;

I guess being banned is not the end of the world, I just don&#39;t understand why the board can be so authoritarinstic sometimes?

Keep on keeping on&#33;

[wtfm8lol]

9) If you are a hot young boy, you may have a very slim chance of being in my favour.

why hello there michael jackson

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 05:26 am

9) If you are a hot young boy, you may have a very slim chance of being in my favour.

why hello there michael jackson
Why hello... ;)

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Why were Shadowed by secret police and Johny Anarcho banned?

[razboz]

I too used to be banned. Now im just restricted.

Why? FOr being antisemitic. What makes this more ironic than anything else ever is i am not anti semitic, nor was i. All this bother is for one little thread i started. In this thread everyone thought that i was anti-semitic just because i said i disliked jews. Well hate is the word i used. However the grounds for my statement were not taken into account ¬_¬ I was saying i had beef with the jews for being zionists, not for actually being jews Zionists are jews and support judaism. I disaprove of zionism, therefor i made the assumption i should disaprove of the jews too.

I was worng on that count: not all jews are zionists. But was i given the chance to defend this?

no

One CdL banned me presto...


This reflects something whcih runs very deep in society today. The sacred status of people of the jewish religion. I was actually attacked at my school by rabid zionists for daring to say that israel did such a thing as invade palestine. That&#39;s not what bothere me. I expected that. But what i didnt expect is honest ostensibly unbiggoted comerads doing the same, and saying i was insensitive, racist and even (this one cracked me up tbh) a Nazi. Though the Nazi one is helped by a teacher who spread this rumour about me being a nazi... And all this for having the audacity to say that some jews could ever do something negative... :wacko:

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 10:58 am
In this thread everyone thought that i was anti-semitic just because i said i disliked jews. Well hate is the word i used.
If "hating" Jews is not the basis for anti-semetism, what is?

It seems to me that people don&#39;t like being branded with negative terms, but when you actually get to the base of what you&#39;re saying it doesn&#39;t matter whether you like being branded with the term or not, it is nevertheless what you are.

[razboz]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+February 12, 2007 10:55 am--> (The Anarchist Tension @ February 12, 2007 10:55 am)
[email protected] 12, 2007 10:58 am
In this thread everyone thought that i was anti-semitic just because i said i disliked jews. Well hate is the word i used.
If "hating" Jews is not the basis for anti-semetism, what is?

It seems to me that people don&#39;t like being branded with negative terms, but when you actually get to the base of what you&#39;re saying it doesn&#39;t matter whether you like being branded with the term or not, it is nevertheless what you are. [/b]
Yeah except i made it perfectly clear in the post above that, and read closely, i do not hate people of the jewish religion for being of the jewish religion.

I have very strong problems with some people of the jewish religion (specifically zionists).

If that makes me an antisemite then so be it, but i will repeat this again and again until somone notes it i do not hate all jews cathegorically. This is a mistaken impretion of me, which i was unable to correct.

Oh and anyone claiming to want freedom or equality for palestinians and israelis: you are also antisemites because being pro-palestinian in any way means being anti-israeli, and virtually all israelis are jews. This de facto means you hold views which are anti-jewish (though not against all jews, see above).

[Guerrilla22]

so you probaly should have stated that you hate zionist, instead of mentioning the Jewish people as a whole.

[razboz]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 11:34 am
so you probaly should have stated that you hate zionist, instead of mentioning the Jewish people as a whole.
Yeah i should have. I then changed my stance but by then... i was banned.

Oh yeah and i would like all my posting privileges back (including CC, but i will live without that if i must) in case an admin reads this.

[Guerrilla22]

Oh yeah and i would like all my posting privileges back (including CC, but i will live without that if i must) in case an admin reads this.

Good luck with that.

[razboz]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 08:42 pm

Oh yeah and i would like all my posting privileges back (including CC, but i will live without that if i must) in case an admin reads this.

Good luck with that.
Yeah im gonna pretend that&#39;s not ironic and thank you for that <_<

[razboz]

I almost never double-post but i think that it would be important for somone to unrestrict me. There has been a mistake that needs to be rectified. I hope i dont need to take a more proactive approach to resolving this mistake.

and by that i mean PM somone so dont get any funny ideas.

[bcbm]

Yeah, yeah. We&#39;ll decide your fate soon enough, hold your horses.

[razboz]

Originally posted by black coffee black [email protected] 12, 2007 10:26 pm
Yeah, yeah. We&#39;ll decide your fate soon enough, hold your horses.
Thanks, ill try.

[Reuben]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 10:22 pm
I almost never double-post but i think that it would be important for somone to unrestrict me. There has been a mistake that needs to be rectified. I hope i dont need to take a more proactive approach to resolving this mistake.

and by that i mean PM somone so dont get any funny ideas.
razboz restricting you was not a &#39;mistake&#39; as you put it. It was a reasonable response to you advocating an anti-jewish line and to you directing insults against the jewish people as a whole &#39;the jews are unbelievably touchy&#39; etc. etc.

If you have now changed your mind then that is osmething we should consider, but I fail to see how the original decision to restrict you was mistaken.

Do you see fit to apologise for what you said?

[razboz]

Originally posted by Reuben+February 13, 2007 02:07 pm--> (Reuben @ February 13, 2007 02:07 pm)
[email protected] 12, 2007 10:22 pm
I almost never double-post but i think that it would be important for somone to unrestrict me. There has been a mistake that needs to be rectified. I hope i dont need to take a more proactive approach to resolving this mistake.

and by that i mean PM somone so dont get any funny ideas.
razboz restricting you was not a &#39;mistake&#39; as you put it. It was a reasonable response to you advocating an anti-jewish line and to you directing insults against the jewish people as a whole &#39;the jews are unbelievably touchy&#39; etc. etc.

If you have now changed your mind then that is osmething we should consider, but I fail to see how the original decision to restrict you was mistaken.

Do you see fit to apologise for what you said? [/b]
Depends what you are asking me to apologise for. If you are asking me to apologise for the anti-semtism thread then see above and below for a full description of my stance. If you are asking me to apologise for saying that restricting me was a mistake then you must be tripping man, because there i was just trying to make the point that i disagree with the need for me to be still restricted right now.

To save you the trouble of having to read my posts above i wil (again) explain my stance:

+ I do not have anything against jews. My beef is with zionists who infringe on the rights of palestinians by their very ideology.

+ I understand that not all jews are zionists.

Oh and i still believe that the judaism is not special. It is a religion like any other. I refuse to treat it differently than any other. People (including those of jewish religion, though this is irrelevant) are very sensitive about the crimes committed by those of jewish religion in palestine, and there is no rational reason why this should be so. They are not the chosen people. They are just people. End of story.

[Okocim]

I&#39;m a marxist-leninist as 90% of my posts since i joined will show you yet I&#39;ve been restricted for disagreeing with you on one issue - an issue that the left in all countries used to agree with me on before siding with the reactionary religious zealots as you do now.

how the hell am i supposed to answer the thread in question when i&#39;m not allowed to post? this is absurd. I get racially abused by a member of this board and then i&#39;m the one who gets restricted. wtf?




things like this are utter bollocks:

You see yourself as Jewish and Palestinians as nothing. You are a fucking racist. You believe you are better than Palestinians by blood.

I do not see myself as better than palestinians. what rubbish.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 07:47 pm
I&#39;m a marxist-leninist as 90% of my posts since i joined will show you yet I&#39;ve been restricted for disagreeing with you on one issue - an issue that the left in all countries used to agree with me on before siding with the reactionary religious zealots as you do now.
Ah yes, of course the people calling for a Jewish state are entirely secular :rolleyes:


how the hell am i supposed to answer the thread in question when i&#39;m not allowed to post? this is absurd. I get racially abused by a member of this board and then i&#39;m the one who gets restricted. wtf?
Who&#39;s been making these racist comments, report them to a mod or admin and we will warn/restrict/ban/break their fucking necks.





things like this are utter bollocks:

You see yourself as Jewish and Palestinians as nothing. You are a fucking racist. You believe you are better than Palestinians by blood.

I do not see myself as better than Palestinians. what rubbish.
You&#39;re still a Zionist, we still restrict Zionists. Tough shit I&#39;m afraid. Please feel free to resurrect any of the neo-con pro Israel threads floating around.

[Okocim]

Ah yes, of course the people calling for a Jewish state are entirely secular :rolleyes:

as I explained clearly in one of my posts, Israel is mainly a secular state, it gives equal rights to non-Jews and the only reason for the law restricting marriage between Jews and non-Jews is that that particular department is controlled by the religious as a concession in order to get them to support the state. If Israel&#39;s existence wasn&#39;t continually under threat there would be no need for such concessions and marriage between the two would undoubtedly be allowed.

funny thing is, look at the states you&#39;re supporting and how they treat other religions, sexualities, women or whatever. nice hypocrisy there. :rolleyes:


Who&#39;s been making these racist comments, report them to a mod or admin and we will warn/restrict/ban/break their fucking necks.

the one who assumed I must be Jewish.


You&#39;re still a Zionist, we still restrict Zionists. Tough shit I&#39;m afraid. Please feel free to resurrect any of the neo-con pro Israel threads floating around.

you restrict zionists because you can&#39;t win the argument against them, that&#39;s pretty fucking appalling. At no point was I racist or make arbitrary assumptions as the anti-zionists did.

[anti_fa01]

Wow.....restricting this person because you think he is a Zionists..........i&#39;ve heard this some where...hmmm thats right....Storm Fuck........


shame on you Jazz Ratt

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 08:32 pm
Wow.....restricting this person because you think he is a Zionists..........i&#39;ve heard this some where...hmmm thats right....Storm Fuck........

You&#39;re a fucking idiot. Left criticisms of Zionism take a very different form to the kind you will find on Storm****. Feel free to look through the board to see this. Alsoit&#39;s because the member is a Zionist.

I am not interested in debating this member on this issue and I don&#39;t particularly care if they are restricted or not. I&#39;m just explaining to them why they are.

[Okocim]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+April 19, 2007 09:38 pm--> (Jazzratt @ April 19, 2007 09:38 pm)
[email protected] 19, 2007 08:32 pm
Wow.....restricting this person because you think he is a Zionists..........i&#39;ve heard this some where...hmmm thats right....Storm Fuck........

You&#39;re a fucking idiot. Left criticisms of Zionism take a very different form to the kind you will find on Storm****. Feel free to look through the board to see this. Alsoit&#39;s because the member is a Zionist.

I am not interested in debating this member on this issue and I don&#39;t particularly care if they are restricted or not. I&#39;m just explaining to them why they are. [/b]
tbh it&#39;s pretty stupid to restrict people just because you can&#39;t win an argument against them. The thread asked why the left is against Israel, I read it, saw a load of lies and so countered these with the truth.

Sorry that I don&#39;t subscribe to lies like Arabs not being allowed to vote in Israel which are just bollocks btw, and make you look like fools when members here repeat them in RL.

[Question everything]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 08:32 pm
Wow.....restricting this person because you think he is a Zionists..........i&#39;ve heard this some where...hmmm thats right....Storm Fuck........


shame on you Jazz Ratt
I&#39;ve been debating Okocim, I saw this coming, him and Graffiti are the only ones who oppose the establishment of a Palestinian state, they are being called trolls.

I&#39;m not an Ass, I&#39;m not going to rub it in. Your posts elsewhere are pretty good, I hope you get unrestricted soon :) (So I can continue to kick your zionist ass in the debate :P )

[Okocim]

Originally posted by Question [email protected] 19, 2007 09:46 pm
I&#39;ve been debating Okocim, I saw this coming, him and Graffiti are the only ones who oppose the establishment of a Palestinian state, they are being called trolls.

I&#39;m not an Ass, I&#39;m not going to rub it in. Your posts elsewhere are pretty good, I hope you get unrestricted soon :) (So I can continue to kick your zionist ass in the debate :P )
I do not oppose the establishment of a Palestinian state, I have stated a few times that what needs to happen is debate, this isn&#39;t going to happen whilst people are blowing themselves up and refusing to recognise Israel. The best thing the PA could do would be to recognise Israel, fulfil its side of Oslo and then debate could take place. Until then more people are going to die, more kids are going to be brainwashed into thinking they&#39;ll get a bunch of virgins for blowing themselves up and Israel is going to have to take more methods to protect itself and its civilians.


but thanks. :) I&#39;m sorry I don&#39;t have time to answer you better (exams etc atm)

[Question everything]

Originally posted by Okocim+April 19, 2007 08:53 pm--> (Okocim &#064; April 19, 2007 08:53 pm)
Question [email protected] 19, 2007 09:46 pm
I&#39;ve been debating Okocim, I saw this coming, him and Graffiti are the only ones who oppose the establishment of a Palestinian state, they are being called trolls.

I&#39;m not an Ass, I&#39;m not going to rub it in. Your posts elsewhere are pretty good, I hope you get unrestricted soon :) (So I can continue to kick your zionist ass in the debate :P )
I do not oppose the establishment of a Palestinian state, I have stated a few times that what needs to happen is debate, this isn&#39;t going to happen whilst people are blowing themselves up and refusing to recognise Israel. The best thing the PA could do would be to recognise Israel, fulfil its side of Oslo and then debate could take place. Until then more people are going to die, more kids are going to be brainwashed into thinking they&#39;ll get a bunch of virgins for blowing themselves up and Israel is going to have to take more methods to protect itself and its civilians.


but thanks. :) I&#39;m sorry I don&#39;t have time to answer you better (exams etc atm) [/b]
At least the PLO is willing to recognize Israel as a political entity...

Let&#39;s not turn this in to an other debate...

Maybe you could re-open the thread in the OI

See you soon hopefully.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 08:44 pm
tbh it&#39;s pretty stupid to restrict people just because you can&#39;t win an argument against them. The thread asked why the left is against Israel, I read it, saw a load of lies and so countered these with the truth.
I wouldn&#39;t be so fucking up yourself (saying we "can&#39;t win" an argument against you) if I wanted to be unrestricted, but whatever. We restrict capitalists for example, not because we are afraid that they will win arguments but because they are opposed to our ideology, much like you are with your support for Israel. Wouldn&#39;t it be more sensible to ban you if we couldn&#39;t win the argument, by the way? You can still make the argument whilst restricted so even if you are "winning" restricting you won&#39;t stop it.


Sorry that I don&#39;t subscribe to lies like Arabs not being allowed to vote in Israel which are just bollocks btw, and make you look like fools when members here repeat them in RL.
I&#39;m sure you don&#39;t but you&#39;re perfectly happy to believe that Israel should exist.

[Okocim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 10:10 pm
I wouldn&#39;t be so fucking up yourself (saying we "can&#39;t win" an argument against you) if I wanted to be unrestricted, but whatever. We restrict capitalists for example, not because we are afraid that they will win arguments but because they are opposed to our ideology, much like you are with your support for Israel. Wouldn&#39;t it be more sensible to ban you if we couldn&#39;t win the argument, by the way? You can still make the argument whilst restricted so even if you are "winning" restricting you won&#39;t stop it.


Sorry that I don&#39;t subscribe to lies like Arabs not being allowed to vote in Israel which are just bollocks btw, and make you look like fools when members here repeat them in RL.
I&#39;m sure you don&#39;t but you&#39;re perfectly happy to believe that Israel should exist.
you&#39;re not going to unrestrict me though, are you? I&#39;m not going to say I believe that Israel shouldn&#39;t exist just so I get unrestricted, what kind of person would utterly change their viewpoint like that?

[Chicano Shamrock]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 11:47 am

things like this are utter bollocks:

You see yourself as Jewish and Palestinians as nothing. You are a fucking racist. You believe you are better than Palestinians by blood.

I do not see myself as better than palestinians. what rubbish.
So Israelis aren&#39;t better than Palestinians? So Israelis don&#39;t have more of a right to live then Palestinians? So you agree that it was wrong for Israelis to invade where the people now known as Palestinians were living. You agree then that it was wrong for Israelis to take their homes even if the Palestinians didn&#39;t have it written in law that they were living there? Or do you believe that the Palestinians didn&#39;t have a claim to the land because they didn&#39;t have a bourgeois law claiming it?

[Question everything]

Look Jazzratt, I was one of the main guys debating him, he doesn&#39;t deserve to be restricted (&#39;sides we were winning), if you look at some of his other posts (the ones that don&#39;t involve Israel), he&#39;s alright...

Okocim, I know you&#39;re not going to like this option, but I think it is the only compromise in this situation, maybe if you promised not to debate about Israel (simply leave the subject alone, you don&#39;t have to renounce it), Jazzrat would unrestrict you...

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Question everything+April 19, 2007 10:14 pm--> (Question everything &#064; April 19, 2007 10:14 pm) Look Jazzratt, I was one of the main guys debating him, he doesn&#39;t deserve to be restricted (&#39;sides we were winning), if you look at some of his other posts (the ones that don&#39;t involve Israel), he&#39;s alright... [/b]

me
I am not interested in debating this member on this issue and I don&#39;t particularly care if they are restricted or not. I&#39;m just explaining to them why they are.


Jazzrat would unrestrict you...
It&#39;s not up to me alone whether this guy is unrestricted or not.

[Revolution Until Victory]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 07:47 pm
I&#39;m a marxist-leninist as 90% of my posts since i joined will show you yet I&#39;ve been restricted for disagreeing with you on one issue - an issue that the left in all countries used to agree with me on before siding with the reactionary religious zealots as you do now.





to be honest, I haven&#39;t seen your "other" posts. I have only seen your posts on the "Israel" topic.
Everysingle person on this thread, believes with no doubt that the posts you have posted on that thread are a 100% indecation that your NOT a marxist-leninist.
I mean, come on, every single source you&#39;ve provided was right-wing, racist, and imperialist.
how could you be a leftist, if you try you best to so veciously demonize Palestinians in this way?

now, were exactly did you get the "left in all countreis used to agree with me"
you mean the left in other countries were pro-zionist colony??
the zionist colony is a 19th century colonial idea, created by the help of the colonial power to maintain their control in the region.
the zionist colony is an imperial terror colony in every single sense of the world.
no leftist on the face of earth would support it.
you are either spewing bullshit, or those people you knew had nothing to do with the left.

you think you were restricted coz they couldn&#39;t win the argument??
you serious? :blink:
so so many SHORT posts have been ignored by you.
you kept responding to most poinst made with the propaganda sites that were refuted easly.
Arabs do have the right to vote in the zionist colony. the person who posted this probably didn&#39;t know.

"it gives equal rights to non-Jews"

when are you ever gonna stop your bullshit???
do you realize how stupid do you sound?
that is among the numerous posts which you have escaped from answering; I posted a post with a list of most of the Aprtheid laws. In other words, the colony BOTH racist in pratice AND law

[RGacky3]

You can be a Zionist and a Socialist, the same way you can be Patriotic and a leftist. I think the restrictions are a little too strick personally.

[RNK]

funny thing is, look at the states you&#39;re supporting

With the possible exception of some lesser-experienced leftists, not a single person on this board supported ANY state. They supported the people who are being oppressed by Israel. Period. End of sentence. You got that? Do you understand?

Nobody said "all hail Palestine&#33; destroy Israel&#33; Sharia 4EVER&#33;" This whole concept of you believing that anybody is supporting a Palestinian state over an Israeli state is ludicrous, and an obvious symptom of your very obvious (to everyone but yourself) pro-zionist mindset.

The facts, as you love to call them, are that the state of Israel has and is pursuing a policy of suppression of Palestinians, by first forcefully evicting them from their homes and, more importantly, their livelihoods, and then enforcing their evictions through military actions, police actions, and the enforcement of a law that is designed to favour Jewish land ownership.

You have been restricted because of your complete subservience to the Israeli state&#39;s "propaganda line"; because you have repeatedly refuted all &#39;claims&#39; of Palestinian suffering as nothing but "lies"; you have re-enforced your idiotic stance by claiming that Palestinians, as a people, don&#39;t exist, that the concept of their existence is nothing but a lie, and used this as a reason to ignore any claims of oppression against them; and, finally, you have acted in a completely right-wing reactionary way.

So fuck off and die, you ****ish child-killing zionist scum. You&#39;ll probably find that Storm**** is much more amicable to your discrimination -- go hang out with them.

And if you are really serious about socialist revolution, I would suggest that you take the next little while to take an honest, critical look at yourself and your beliefs, and take what we&#39;ve all said a hell of a lot more serious than you have been. Stop being a fucking defensive prick; being discriminated against is not a legitimate excuse to be ignorant.

So take some time, re-think your values, and if you think you&#39;re serious about being revolutionary, come back in awhile and maybe you&#39;ll be unrestricted.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

As a general rule, I do not believe anyone should be restricted (or have their commitment to socialism questioned) based on their stance on current events or the particular policies of this or that government.

I frankly don&#39;t see why everyone makes such a huge deal about the situation in Israel/Palestine. It&#39;s not as if the Palestinians are the only oppressed people in the world. Their suffering is part of the much broader suffering of all those exploited by imperialism.

But anyway, that&#39;s off-topic. My point is that I believe no one should be restricted as long as they believe in public ownership of the means of production.

[KC]

Could you please not discuss the issue of Israel in this thread? Soon the thread in which you were participating should be moved to OI anyways, so we can continue the debate when that happens. Otherwise, please stop posting such stuff in this thread as that&#39;s not what this thread is about.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 03:31 am
So fuck off and die, you ****ish child-killing zionist scum. You&#39;ll probably find that Storm**** is much more amicable to your discrimination -- go hang out with them.

And if you are really serious about socialist revolution, I would suggest that you take the next little while to take an honest, critical look at yourself and your beliefs, and take what we&#39;ve all said a hell of a lot more serious than you have been. Stop being a fucking defensive prick; being discriminated against is not a legitimate excuse to be ignorant.

So take some time, re-think your values, and if you think you&#39;re serious about being revolutionary, come back in awhile and maybe you&#39;ll be unrestricted.
I&#39;m sorry, but if your goal is to persuade Okocim to come to your side, this is not the way to do it. Who would re-think their values after being called a "****ish child-killing zionist scum"? Do you want him to go to Stormfront and join the ranks of our enemies?

It is crucially important to get as many people as possible on the revolutionary side. Insulting someone who agrees with you on a lot of important points is just going to alienate them and push them further towards reaction.

[Revolution Until Victory]

"Nobody said "all hail Palestine&#33; destroy Israel&#33; Sharia 4EVER&#33;" This whole concept of you believing that anybody is supporting a Palestinian state over an Israeli state is ludicrous"

RNK, Palestine belongs to the Palestinian people (exept for 5.8% legally purchased by the zionists); they have a right to self-determination on ALL of Palestine, establish a secular democratic state called Palestine were jews and arabs can live peacefully with equal rights.


"You can be a Zionist and a Socialist, the same way you can be Patriotic and a leftist"

Are you serious??
there is nothing wrong with being patriotic.
being zionist means you support the zionist colony called "the state of Israel"
a colony that is illegitamite since it&#39;s established on the ruins, blood, and lands of some one else.
A colony created by impearial powers to further their goals and protect their interests.
Zionism is a 19th century traditional colonial ideaology. Zionism is against majority rule: zionism is racism.
during the 19th centurey, European settlers were going around colonizing, enslaving, and murdering people they believed were "savages"
the zionist did the same thing during the 19th century.
the difference is, colonization almost no longer exists any other place; it fell out of style.
It is (supposedly) no longer acceptable to enslave people
no longer acceptable to colonize others
no longer acceptable to rob and commit genocide against others.
Druing the 19th century and up to the end of WWII, we had no Geneva conventions and International law; sorry, but today, things changed.
COLONIZATION NO LONGER ACCEPTABLE
In other words, almost every single thing about the zionist colony is againt the principles of the left, yet your saying "you can be a zionist and a socialist" NOP, doesn&#39;t work; never will

[Fawkes]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 03:32 pm


shame on you Jazz Ratt
It wasn&#39;t solely Jazzratt that decided for him to be restricted, it was the CC which almost unanimously agreed on his restriction.

[Question everything]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 01:31 am

funny thing is, look at the states you&#39;re supporting

With the possible exception of some lesser-experienced leftists, not a single person on this board supported ANY state. They supported the people who are being oppressed by Israel. Period. End of sentence. You got that? Do you understand?

Nobody said "all hail Palestine&#33; destroy Israel&#33; Sharia 4EVER&#33;" This whole concept of you believing that anybody is supporting a Palestinian state over an Israeli state is ludicrous, and an obvious symptom of your very obvious (to everyone but yourself) pro-zionist mindset.

The facts, as you love to call them, are that the state of Israel has and is pursuing a policy of suppression of Palestinians, by first forcefully evicting them from their homes and, more importantly, their livelihoods, and then enforcing their evictions through military actions, police actions, and the enforcement of a law that is designed to favour Jewish land ownership.

You have been restricted because of your complete subservience to the Israeli state&#39;s "propaganda line"; because you have repeatedly refuted all &#39;claims&#39; of Palestinian suffering as nothing but "lies"; you have re-enforced your idiotic stance by claiming that Palestinians, as a people, don&#39;t exist, that the concept of their existence is nothing but a lie, and used this as a reason to ignore any claims of oppression against them; and, finally, you have acted in a completely right-wing reactionary way.

So fuck off and die, you ****ish child-killing zionist scum. You&#39;ll probably find that Storm**** is much more amicable to your discrimination -- go hang out with them.

And if you are really serious about socialist revolution, I would suggest that you take the next little while to take an honest, critical look at yourself and your beliefs, and take what we&#39;ve all said a hell of a lot more serious than you have been. Stop being a fucking defensive prick; being discriminated against is not a legitimate excuse to be ignorant.

So take some time, re-think your values, and if you think you&#39;re serious about being revolutionary, come back in awhile and maybe you&#39;ll be unrestricted.
all hail Palestine&#33; destroy Israel&#33; Sharia 4EVER&#33; ( :P )