The United States as an Authoritarian Regime?

[Alexander Hamilton]

I was reading the thread where there was a discussion related to who was the favorite cappie of the commies and vice-versa.

One of the people referred to Ronald Reagan's administration as an "authoritarian regime".

I do not believe that the majority of commies who post at my website here are so dumb as the person who made this comment.

I realize that we cappies and commies disagree on the basis of societies, and that you commies think that America isn't a democracy because it represents the interests of the wealthy owners of production. That much I got and can even respect.

But NO president, with the exception of the first 6 weeks of the Lincoln Presidency, ran an authoritarian regime. (President Bush has done similar things in secret, but generally speaking, Congress could shut him down if they wished. They have oversight, the power of the purse, and a whole bunch of stuff if they chose to use it.

Ronald Reagan was the firthest thing from a dictator or authoritarian ruler. In fact, for ALL of his administration, the House of Reps was controlled by the Democrats, lead by the pathetic and clown-like Tip O'Neal. The Senate was also Democratic for part of his presidency, and confirmed Sandra Day O'Conner as associate justice of the Court.

I could site countless examples, but as misguided as you commies think we cappies are, do you really believe that we elect a "dictator for a four year term" when we elect a president?

From 1995 to 1997, THE most powerful leader in America was (sp?) Newt Geingrich. The Republican controlled House (they just won it back, promising a "Contract with America", achieved 7 of their 10 goals in only one year.

Where does this "authoritarian regime" stuff come from?


A. Hamilton

[Cheung Mo]

Commies may not be that dumb, but you sure as fuck are.

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=59905

http://memewatch.com/thelist/archives/pix/morans.jpg

Incidentally, what does this site have to do with the U.S. Democratic Party and its supporters anyways? Your trolling would actually have more relevance at a place like Democratic Underground or the DailyKOS.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Perhaps the dumb one, Cheung Mo, is your dumb ass, who sends me to a site with this statement:

Sorry, the link that brought you to this page seems to be out of date or broken.


Cheung, do you have anything useful to contribute, are are you just going to mourn the loss of every attempt at communism there ever was.

Che would have been very disappointed at your response.


A. Hamilton

[bolshevik butcher]

Okay, I'll try and provide a decent answer to a decent question.

I wouldn't say Regan was authoritarian perse, he wasn't like some kinda of bourgeoirse dictator or what have you silencing freedom of speach etc. What Regan represented was the ruling class reganing the upperhand that they lost in the '60s and struggled to regain in the 1970's. With Regan in control the bourgeoirse changed the direction of class war back in their direction, he was authoritarian in the sense that he launched an all out attack on the gains of the working class, slashing wellfair, health provisions etc.

On 'elcting a dictator', I wouldn't say that in a capitalist society there were individual dicotators as such, well not in a bourgeorise democracy but there is a dictatorship of the capitalist class. The fact that it has the guise of democracy doesn't change this. It's democracy on the ruling class' terms, and when they were challeneged by democratic and legal movements in the party they smashed them brutally, they will be prepaired to do so again in the future.

[Cryotank Screams]

By all definitions the entire US history has been under a authoritarian and or oppressive "regime."

"Aggression is simply another name for government. Aggression, invasion, government, are interconvertible terms. The essence of government is control, or the attempt to control. He who attempts to control another is a governor, an aggressor, an invader; and the nature of such invasion is not changed, whether it is made by one man upon another man, after the manner of the ordinary criminal, or by one man upon all other men, after the manner of an absolute monarch, or by all other men upon one man, after the manner of a modern democracy."-Benjamin R. Tucker

[Zero]

I think the simple fact that you can loose a popular election and win the presidency says something.

[Alexander Hamilton]

bolshevik butcher,

Thank you for providing me with a more reasoned reply as opposed to Mo's idiocy.

You wrote:


he was authoritarian in the sense that he launched an all out attack on the gains of the working class, slashing wellfair, health provisions etc.

I do not know what you know about our government's method of operation, but it goes this way:

Ronald Reagan could not hava launched jack shit. In our system, the President is unable to legislate. Bills come to him, and he signs or rejects them. That's his entire role.

Of course, in reality, his supporters write the legislation, or his cabinet under-secretaries, or a corporation or its interests or reps, or whatever. A member of BOTH the House of Representitives (435 people), and the Senate (100 members) must sponsor the bill in each of their houses. It has to pass both of those houses. EVERY LAW that passed which would fit your discription of "an all out attack, etc", was passed by a Democratic House and Democratic Senate. That means that all the Republicans, AND SOME OF THE DEMOCRATS, had to vote for each piece of legislation.

Of coure he WASN'T authoritarian. Why not credit the 97th Congress with "Reaganomics"? They were just as responsible as he, if not more so. They ddon't pass it, it doesn't get to his desk, it doesn't become law!

Also, bolshevik: Be very careful that you don't "applaud" what the U.S. did in the '60s and '70s versus the '80s. As a commie, if I understand it, you are supposed to believe that there was generally no difference between Kennedy's most liberal day, versus Eisenhower's most conservative one. According to you, both were reactionary and against the interests of the majority of Americans: the working class. You can't be "upset" with Reagan; no commie can. He was just the personification of what we are: Capitalist and Exploitive.


Cryotank Screams:

You wrote:


By all definitions the entire US history has been under a authoritarian and or oppressive "regime."

You then went on to give a general comment about how ALL societies that govern are this way.

Two responses:

1) If you believe this is so, then you have expanded the definition of ALL state's that provide authority to people. That is, the entire world. Or, the 99% that functions under nationalism, which is nearly all of it. If then the U.S. is lumped into the world batch, you really have no particual beef with America, as it's only doing what every nation does. Your definition becomes so outrageously general that it has no weight.

2) If you believe the U.S. is "espcially" more of this than other countries, i.e., more oppresive, etc., then you are left with the irony of explaining why everyone in the world comes here and nationalizes as a U.S. citizen. The People of the World have voted with their feet, and chosen where they want to be more than any other place in the world.

Thank you for your responses.


A. Hamilton

[Cryotank Screams]

1) If you believe this is so, then you have expanded the definition of ALL state's that provide authority to people. That is, the entire world. Or, the 99% that functions under nationalism, which is nearly all of it. If then the U.S. is lumped into the world batch, you really have no particual beef with America, as it's only doing what every nation does. Your definition becomes so outrageously general that it has no weight.

Exactly, it is in my view that all governments, and states are inherently oppressive, and to some degree authoritarian; I am against all states and governments, and my quote gives a summary of this view, and should be coupled with Anarchist philosophy, and theory, to give a clear view of what I mean.

My defintion is not outrageous at all; quite overreacting.


2) If you believe the U.S. is "espcially" more of this than other countries, i.e., more oppresive, etc., then you are left with the irony of explaining why everyone in the world comes here and nationalizes as a U.S. citizen. The People of the World have voted with their feet, and chosen where they want to be more than any other place in the world.

Typical american arguing tool, "if the us is so bad, then why do people come here huh," well just because people come to america, doesn't make it any less oppressive, or authoritarian, nor does it make the country they came from any better; I also think it is idiotic to state that the world loves america and the majority of it chooses to live and become a citizen in the us, that simply is not true.

[Alexander Hamilton]

I didn't say the world loves america, nor did i say the majority wants to come to america; read what i wrote. i simply made the obvious argument that in the past 100 years, people have chosen to come to america as opposed to various other choices.

no one is beating down the doors of the people's republic of china, or vietnam, EVEN THOUGH THOSE NATIONS ARE EXPERIENCING GREAT ECONOMIC PROSPERITY.

I wrote the above because so many commies at this site argue that people came and come to usa because of econimic reasons and to enjoy a better life. well, currently, china and vietnam are exploding economically compared to the united states. people should be trying to immigrate and nationalize to become citizens there. but they're not. yet people continue to do so here in america.

re: you "typical american arguing tool", you're right. i would also use gravity and mathematics as typical arguing tools. if they work as arguing tools, duh!

it isn't that america "aint so bad"; it's because it's so good. if you don't agree, you don't agree. you apparently make your home in america and germany. so you must agree to some extent. otherwise you wouldn't hang around. at least one presumes this. you may argue my presumption, but you're still here (some of the time, i guess).

re: your observation that the power of government = the power of authority = the power to bring harm to citizens, you are obviously correct. this was argued GREATLY by the framers of the consitution and in the federalist papers. human beings will abuse their power, so split the power up. the world's various nation states which have attempted SOME type of revolutionary socialism have always ended up beating up their people. but they don't have a bill of rights, due process, and the fifth and fourteenth amendments. good luck to them.


A. Hamilton

[Phalanx]

Originally posted by Alexander [email protected] 09, 2006 01:54 pm
I wrote the above because so many commies at this site argue that people came and come to usa because of econimic reasons and to enjoy a better life. well, currently, china and vietnam are exploding economically compared to the united states. people should be trying to immigrate and nationalize to become citizens there. but they're not. yet people continue to do so here in america.
That's because almost the entire east Asian region is experiencing growth. The few places where the economy is stagnant, like Myanmar, they've seen an exodus of people to Thailand and Vietnam.


it isn't that america "aint so bad"; it's because it's so good. if you don't agree, you don't agree. you apparently make your home in america and germany. so you must agree to some extent. otherwise you wouldn't hang around. at least one presumes this. you may argue my presumption, but you're still here (some of the time, i guess).

Sometimes family is important too, you know.

As for Reagan being authoritarian? Just ask the victims of the Contras in Nicaragua.

[Alexander Hamilton]

I am still waiting (sadly) for a commie to, at this thread, admit there was such a thing as the 96th and 97th Congress, and that these organizations were responsible for ALL of the legislation which came to President Reagan's desk concerning the economic decisions.

Why is it commies ONLY view the person elected President as having any meaning to the governmental process in the U.S. I can't believe your education systems are so poor outside of the U.S. to believe that presidents in the US is a dictator, and that Congress does nothing, does not pass legislation, and stays home all day.

Very weird; very sad.

AH

[harris0]

Well it's certainly not authoritarian like one country much idealized on this site: "communist" cuba...where they have never had a free and open election.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2006 03:39 pm
Well it's certainly not authoritarian like one country much idealized on this site: "communist" cuba...where they have never had a free and open election.
That's one wild motherfucker of a claim you just made, care to add some evidence?

[harris0]

Stalinist youth boy...may I ask, whose the last person to run against Castro as supreme benevolent dictator?

They are not free and open elections because all opposition parties (such as Christian Democratic Party of Cuba, the Cuban Socialist Democratic Current, the Democratic Social-Revolutionary Party of Cuba, the Democratic Solidarity Party, the Liberal Party of Cuba and the Social Democratic Co-ordination of Cuba, etc) are BANNED.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2006 04:10 pm
Stalinist youth boy
You don't have a hell of a lot going on between your ears do you? Liberal democrat.


...may I ask, whose the last person to run against Castro as supreme benevolent dictator?

They are not free and open elections because all opposition parties (such as Christian Democratic Party of Cuba, the Cuban Socialist Democratic Current, the Democratic Social-Revolutionary Party of Cuba, the Democratic Solidarity Party, the Liberal Party of Cuba and the Social Democratic Co-ordination of Cuba, etc) are BANNED. Is that ALL the opposition as you claim.
I'm fully open to people crisising Cuba, as it's a country I don't know a lot about. I hear many good things about it from Cubans (although the gusano scum tend to think differently), but any acedemic papers or serious political writings that are fully verifiable would really be appreciated.

[Cryotank Screams]

I didn't say the world loves america, nor did i say the majority wants to come to america; read what i wrote


The People of the World have voted with their feet, and chosen where they want to be more than any other place in the world

I did.


re: you "typical american arguing tool", you're right. i would also use gravity and mathematics as typical arguing tools. if they work as arguing tools, duh!

It doesn't work at all, it's a coattail argument.


it's because it's so good.

With it's wage slavery, racism, class system, severe class separation, wars, it's theological bullshitry, it's crypto-corporatism, constant surveillance, a corrupt justice system, constant barrage of military propaganda, blind patriotism/nationalism, strong police presence and patrol, so on and so forth, yea, it's good, :rolleyes: .

Also, though I prefer my homeland, and think it is better than america, it still has the same symptoms of a capitalist society, just maybe not to the extent as america.

[bolshevik butcher]

Alexander Hamilton, I am aware of how the American system works, I didn't really mean that Regan as an individual did this or that but that the Regan lead govenrment and Reagnite dominated congress certianly did.

I don't applaud what the US govenrment did in that time, but it has to be recognised that it was forced onto the defensive by a militatn working class, through wild cat strikes, the civil rights movement, the anti-vietnam war movement etc.

On Regan, i'm not upset with him as such I just recognise his dynamic in terms of class war was to maximise the political capital that the American ruling class had gained, the result of this was to attack the gains made by the American working class and to start launching neoliberal policies/imperialism onto the third world.

[kifl]

I would say that government under reagan and most republicans and conservatives are in fact nazis and fascist who learned that it was better to be elected than to take power as dictator.

and the guys in the bush government have done one better they have taken power and they claim they have been elected.

[Alexander Hamilton]

bolshevik butcher:

Yes, the last comments you made were finally accurate. But we in the U.S. have this swinging back and forth all of the time. What is important is that the conservative swing doesn't destroy the progress that's made on the biggies. We have not "returned" to ANY of the things of which you speak. We have not taken one step backward in any area of civil rights, only forward. (We argue about what belongs in civil rights, such as affirmative action and race based programs, and there are others,) but generally, more people are included in representation and benefits than the 60's.

What you may be referring to is that in the 60's there appeared to be on the horizon an inclusion of a non-poverty society. That one didn't step backward as much as it was not brought to fruition. Was it the untimely deaths of the Kennedy brothers? Was it Johnson's obsession over Vietnam that cost him his war on poverty? Same for Nixon's attempt to have a national health care system?

I dunno.

But it didn't happen, so nothing can be "taken away" by stepping backward.

Re your term:

Reagnite dominated congress

This is totally wrong. The democratic party kept control of the House for ALL of his presidency, and the Senate for most or half of it. The amazing thing is that he achieved and got what he wanted from Congress REGARDLESS of it being controlled by the Dems. Pretty amazing. Mr. Bush will not fair as well with the 110th Congress set to start in January.

A. Hamilton

[Alexander Hamilton]

I would say that government under reagan and most republicans and conservatives are in fact nazis and fascist who learned that it was better to be elected than to take power as dictator.

Probably the stupidest comment I have read since joining this group. Not even worth a response.

AH

[harris0]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+December 09, 2006 04:28 pm--> (Jazzratt @ December 09, 2006 04:28 pm)
[email protected] 09, 2006 04:10 pm
Stalinist youth boy
You don't have a hell of a lot going on between your ears do you? Liberal democrat.


...may I ask, whose the last person to run against Castro as supreme benevolent dictator?

They are not free and open elections because all opposition parties (such as Christian Democratic Party of Cuba, the Cuban Socialist Democratic Current, the Democratic Social-Revolutionary Party of Cuba, the Democratic Solidarity Party, the Liberal Party of Cuba and the Social Democratic Co-ordination of Cuba, etc) are BANNED. Is that ALL the opposition as you claim.
I'm fully open to people crisising Cuba, as it's a country I don't know a lot about. I hear many good things about it from Cubans (although the gusano scum tend to think differently), but any acedemic papers or serious political writings that are fully verifiable would really be appreciated. [/b]
Well I'm lazy..so here's the extent of my 'proof' (it's widely known anyway)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Cuba

"The Communist Party of Cuba is currently the only political party permitted to assemble or engage in any political activity in Cuba."

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by harris0+December 09, 2006 09:49 pm--> (harris0 @ December 09, 2006 09:49 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2006 04:28 pm

[email protected] 09, 2006 04:10 pm
Stalinist youth boy
You don't have a hell of a lot going on between your ears do you? Liberal democrat.


...may I ask, whose the last person to run against Castro as supreme benevolent dictator?

They are not free and open elections because all opposition parties (such as Christian Democratic Party of Cuba, the Cuban Socialist Democratic Current, the Democratic Social-Revolutionary Party of Cuba, the Democratic Solidarity Party, the Liberal Party of Cuba and the Social Democratic Co-ordination of Cuba, etc) are BANNED. Is that ALL the opposition as you claim.
I'm fully open to people crisising Cuba, as it's a country I don't know a lot about. I hear many good things about it from Cubans (although the gusano scum tend to think differently), but any acedemic papers or serious political writings that are fully verifiable would really be appreciated.
Well I'm lazy..so here's the extent of my 'proof' (it's widely known anyway) [/b]
Well, you're not doing too well here, firstly you had a wonderful Argumentum ad Populum and then you went on to cite wikipedia



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Cuba

"The Communist Party of Cuba is currently the only political party permitted to assemble or engage in any political activity in Cuba." Despite the fact that wikipedia is often innacurate, especially in its articles on Cuba and the DPRK. I seem to recall one of the members of this board had to edit DPRK so that it had at least a shred of neutrality to it. Iwas expecting something more, but I don't suppose you have access to any (non-gusano) cuban information.

[harris0]

Look...believe what you want. Clearly it's a capitalist conspiracy.

[Jazzratt]

Could you not just concede like a normal person? Do you have to fuck about with stupid little face saving statements like that?

[harris0]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2006 10:01 pm
Could you not just concede like a normal person? Do you have to fuck about with stupid little face saving statements like that?
Would it satisfy your ego for me to concede? It's really a widely known fact that the Communistparty is the only legal one in Cuba....it's not like we're talking some secret documents here.

I'm just too lazy to find source materials to fit your standards, not conceding

[Zero]

Originally posted by "harris0"
I'm just too lazy to find source materials to fit your standards, not concedingActually... that is conceding.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by harris0+December 09, 2006 10:29 pm--> (harris0 @ December 09, 2006 10:29 pm)
[email protected] 09, 2006 10:01 pm
Could you not just concede like a normal person? Do you have to fuck about with stupid little face saving statements like that?
Would it satisfy your ego for me to concede? It's really a widely known fact that the Communistparty is the only legal one in Cuba....it's not like we're talking some secret documents here.
[/b]
I think by "widley known" you mean "popularly believed", thus making your argument an appeal to popularity, rather than to any facts.


I'm just too lazy to find source materials to fit your standards, not conceding Not being able to back up your agrument is the same as losing it you streak of piss.

[harris0]

Well, call it whatever you want...that's what I'm doing.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2006 06:29 pm
It's really a widely known fact that the Communistparty is the only legal one in Cuba
That is Communist theory, big fucking deal, the only party in a Communist system is a Communist one (primarily Marxist-Leninist), and is the official ideology of the vanguard party, everyone fucking knows this shut the hell up.

Would you want bourgeoisie, fascist, and rightest parties in cuba?

[harris0]

Originally posted by Cryotank Screams+December 09, 2006 10:36 pm--> (Cryotank Screams @ December 09, 2006 10:36 pm)
[email protected] 09, 2006 06:29 pm
It's really a widely known fact that the Communistparty is the only legal one in Cuba
That is Communist theory, big fucking deal, the only party in a Communist system is a Communist one (primarily Marxist-Leninist), and is the official ideology of the vanguard party, everyone fucking knows this shut the hell up.

Would you want bourgeoisie, fascist, and rightest parties in cuba? [/b]
I want the Cuban people to be allowed to elect whomever they may wish...whether right wing or left wing. That's how democracy works.


As for Jazzrat, this is my last shot...I'm sure it's in vain as you'll dismiss this as some sort of of imperialist conspiracy to fool the proletariat or whatever...but here it is:

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2886.htm

"Political party: Cuban Communist Party (PCC); only one party allowed."

Aside from that, I'm too lazy to do any other research. If that means I'm conceding, so be it.

[Zero]

Originally posted by "Cryotank Screams"
Would you want bourgeoisie, fascist, and rightest parties in cuba?Would you want a hoodwinked general public not have a choice in who represents them?

If you don't mind not having a choice, don't pay the term Democracy any mind.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by harris0+December 09, 2006 10:42 pm--> (harris0 @ December 09, 2006 10:42 pm)
Originally posted by Cryotank [email protected] 09, 2006 10:36 pm

[email protected] 09, 2006 06:29 pm
It's really a widely known fact that the Communistparty is the only legal one in Cuba
That is Communist theory, big fucking deal, the only party in a Communist system is a Communist one (primarily Marxist-Leninist), and is the official ideology of the vanguard party, everyone fucking knows this shut the hell up.

Would you want bourgeoisie, fascist, and rightest parties in cuba?
I want the Cuban people to be allowed to elect whomever they may wish...whether right wing or left wing. That's how democracy works. [/b]
Then you are not left wing.



As for Jazzrat, this is my last shot...I'm sure it's in vain as you'll dismiss this as some sort of of imperialist conspiracy to fool the proletariat or whatever...but here it is:

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2886.htm

"Political party: Cuban Communist Party (PCC); only one party allowed."

Aside from that, I'm too lazy to do any other research. If that means I'm conceding, so be it. That's the US department of state for fuck's sake. Do the words 'vested interest' mean anything to you? You stupid, stupid ****.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2006 06:42 pm
I want the Cuban people to be allowed to elect whomever they may wish...whether right wing or left wing. That's how democracy works.



Speaking from an Anarchist standpoint I want the cubans to not vote for anyone, and govern themselves autonomously, however I would rather see a Leftist party, and system in place than rightest.

Your not a Leftist your a liberal dumbass.

If cuba elected a capitalist leader, or a fascist leader, would that make you happier than if they just had a Communist, or Socialist leader, because oh, they "voted," for him?

[harris0]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+December 09, 2006 10:48 pm--> (Jazzratt @ December 09, 2006 10:48 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2006 10:42 pm

Originally posted by Cryotank [email protected] 09, 2006 10:36 pm

[email protected] 09, 2006 06:29 pm
It's really a widely known fact that the Communistparty is the only legal one in Cuba
That is Communist theory, big fucking deal, the only party in a Communist system is a Communist one (primarily Marxist-Leninist), and is the official ideology of the vanguard party, everyone fucking knows this shut the hell up.

Would you want bourgeoisie, fascist, and rightest parties in cuba?
I want the Cuban people to be allowed to elect whomever they may wish...whether right wing or left wing. That's how democracy works.
Then you are not left wing.



As for Jazzrat, this is my last shot...I'm sure it's in vain as you'll dismiss this as some sort of of imperialist conspiracy to fool the proletariat or whatever...but here it is:

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2886.htm

"Political party: Cuban Communist Party (PCC); only one party allowed."

Aside from that, I'm too lazy to do any other research. If that means I'm conceding, so be it. That's the US department of state for fuck's sake. Do the words 'vested interest' mean anything to you? You stupid, stupid ****. [/b]
Who are you to say because I believe in the democratic process I'm not a leftist?

[Alexander Hamilton]

harris0...

Generally, harris, that comment, that you believe in the democratic process is enough to get you restricted. I've watched moderators do it. If you believe in democracy, you believe in a two party (or more) system...you don't believe in the dictatorship of the proletariat, or the Party, or the Army that will support your cause (i.e., jam it down everyone's throat.)

you are allowed to believe in post-revolution direct democracy, but that's not what you wrote.

in a little while, someone will report you (you've read 1984, i take it) and your comment will be alerted to what serves as an anti-fascist police here, and you will be restricted.

Ain't Communism Grand?


A. Hamilton

[harris0]

It's ridiculous...they're political positions are like the fascism of the left.

[Alexander Hamilton]

so true, so true.

[harris0]

Originally posted by Cryotank Screams+December 09, 2006 10:48 pm--> (Cryotank Screams @ December 09, 2006 10:48 pm)
[email protected] 09, 2006 06:42 pm
I want the Cuban people to be allowed to elect whomever they may wish...whether right wing or left wing. That's how democracy works.



Speaking from an Anarchist standpoint I want the cubans to not vote for anyone, and govern themselves autonomously, however I would rather see a Leftist party, and system in place than rightest.

Your not a Leftist your a liberal dumbass.

If cuba elected a capitalist leader, or a fascist leader, would that make you happier than if they just had a Communist, or Socialist leader, because oh, they "voted," for him? [/b]
Yes...because I believe in democracy before I believe in socialism

[harris0]

What's really funny is that they consider themselves such radical thinkers...when in reality, within their little clique they're the biggest conformists. FREE THOUGHT IS NOT ALLOWED....you're only allowed to quote Marx

[Alexander Hamilton]

harris, you wrote:


Yes...because I believe in democracy before I believe in socialism

You're a dead man (figuratively speaking).

If you ask the members here what they'd rather have, democracy or socialism, they would all say socialism. hands down. you believe in the opposite. you're one of us!

joking aside, you're only digging your own restriction.


AH

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2006 11:49 pm
Who are you to say because I believe in the democratic process I'm not a leftist?
A leftist that knows what the word entials.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Of course Freedom of Thought is not allowed...what do you think post Revolutionary world will be like, America?

[harris0]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+December 10, 2006 12:22 am--> (Jazzratt @ December 10, 2006 12:22 am)
[email protected] 09, 2006 11:49 pm
Who are you to say because I believe in the democratic process I'm not a leftist?
A leftist that knows what the word entials. [/b]
Being a leftist entails political and economic democracy in my book.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2006 12:21 am
What's really funny is that they consider themselves such radical thinkers...when in reality, within their little clique they're the biggest conformists. FREE THOUGHT IS NOT ALLOWED....you're only allowed to quote Marx
:lol: Most leftists disagree on near enough everything, what makes somone a leftist is a desire for a left wing society. What makes somone opposed to that is opposition to such a society. Dogma doesn't enter into it it's the very basics of being something. It's like you being a liberal democrat don't believe anything should prevent liberal democracy.

[harris0]

I think workers should democratically control their workplaces and the economy. I think they should elect their representatives (if direct democracy isn't feasible) in a democratic way without restrictions.

Guess that makes me a liberal democrat?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2006 12:29 am
I think workers should democratically control their workplaces and the economy. I think they should elect their representatives (if direct democracy isn't feasible) in a democratic way without restrictions.
So do a lot of people on this board.



Guess that makes me a liberal democrat? Supporting democracy as the be all and end all, as well as an end in itself is what makes you a liberal democrat.

[harris0]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+December 10, 2006 12:25 am--> (Jazzratt @ December 10, 2006 12:25 am)
[email protected] 10, 2006 12:21 am
What's really funny is that they consider themselves such radical thinkers...when in reality, within their little clique they're the biggest conformists. FREE THOUGHT IS NOT ALLOWED....you're only allowed to quote Marx
:lol: Most leftists disagree on near enough everything, what makes somone a leftist is a desire for a left wing society. What makes somone opposed to that is opposition to such a society. Dogma doesn't enter into it it's the very basics of being something. It's like you being a liberal democrat don't believe anything should prevent liberal democracy. [/b]
Well it certainly seems as if I'm being attacked for bringing up the following topics and others:

1. The Farc are not freedom fighters. They're drug dealers who target civilians
2. Cuba is not a democracy
3. I believe a draft would prevent future wars
4. While I consider myself a libertarian socialist...I put the democratic process before socialism....What am I talking about "while"? You can't have libertarian socialism without the democratic process!
5. others

[harris0]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+December 10, 2006 12:34 am--> (Jazzratt @ December 10, 2006 12:34 am)
[email protected] 10, 2006 12:29 am
I think workers should democratically control their workplaces and the economy. I think they should elect their representatives (if direct democracy isn't feasible) in a democratic way without restrictions.
So do a lot of people on this board.



Guess that makes me a liberal democrat? Supporting democracy as the be all and end all, as well as an end in itself is what makes you a liberal democrat. [/b]
You can't have socialism without the democratic process. It's that simple.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2006 08:18 pm
Yes...because I believe in democracy before I believe in socialism
I believe in direct democracy; democracy and Socialism are not opposites, in fact they are completely intertwined, it appears that your under that a democracy entails a two-party system, in which both the right and the "left," are equally represented, therefore you believe in bourgeoisie and counter-revolutionary democracy.

Also the fact that you would rather have a fascist leader elected, than a Communist leader not elected, shows outright that you are no comrade, and are no Leftist.


Of course Freedom of Thought is not allowed...what do you think post Revolutionary world will be like, America?

Shut the fuck up, freedom is the very essence of Anarchism, and if you truly think you are free under America and the capitalist system then you truly a naïve.

[harris0]

Originally posted by Cryotank Screams+December 10, 2006 12:38 am--> (Cryotank Screams @ December 10, 2006 12:38 am)
[email protected] 09, 2006 08:18 pm
Yes...because I believe in democracy before I believe in socialism
I believe in direct democracy; democracy and Socialism are not opposites, in fact they are completely intertwined, it appears that your under that a democracy entails a two-party system, in which both the right and the "left," are equally represented, therefore you believe in bourgeoisie and counter-revolutionary democracy.

Also the fact that you would rather have a fascist leader elected, than a Communist leader not elected, shows outright that you are no comrade, and are no Leftist.


Of course Freedom of Thought is not allowed...what do you think post Revolutionary world will be like, America?

Shut the fuck up, freedom is the very essence of Anarchism, and if you truly think you are free under America and the capitalist system then you truly a naïve. [/b]
"Shut the fuck up"! Love these debate topics....brings back 3rd grade all over again.

I agree, socialism and democracy are intertwined. But democracy means that people can vote for whoever they want...and as long as their are people of a conservative bent, there will be a right wing. If you're saying an entire section of society is not allowed to vote for who they want...then you're not an anarchist or a libertarian anything.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Cryotank Screams:

I do not think it correct for you to tell me to "shut the fuck up" on the thread I created and am discussing.

Start your own thread and use such comments.

Thank you, Jerkweed,

A. Hamilton

[harris0]

Originally posted by Cryotank Screams+December 10, 2006 12:38 am--> (Cryotank Screams @ December 10, 2006 12:38 am)
[email protected] 09, 2006 08:18 pm
Yes...because I believe in democracy before I believe in socialism
I believe in direct democracy; democracy and Socialism are not opposites, in fact they are completely intertwined, it appears that your under that a democracy entails a two-party system, in which both the right and the "left," are equally represented, therefore you believe in bourgeoisie and counter-revolutionary democracy.

Also the fact that you would rather have a fascist leader elected, than a Communist leader not elected, shows outright that you are no comrade, and are no Leftist.


Of course Freedom of Thought is not allowed...what do you think post Revolutionary world will be like, America?

Shut the fuck up, freedom is the very essence of Anarchism, and if you truly think you are free under America and the capitalist system then you truly a naïve. [/b]
I'd rather have George Bush elected as a leader than Kropotkin installed as a dictator. Anyone who actually believes in freedom...and not some orwellian euphemism for it...would agree

[Cryotank Screams]

"Shut the fuck up"! Love these debate topics....brings back 3rd grade all over again.
It wasn't a debat topic fuckwad, it was a statement in order to express my annoyance with typical capitalists like AH, and their stupid coattail arguments and general bullshitry.


If you're saying an entire section of society is not allowed to vote for who they want...then you're not an anarchist or a libertarian anything.

I don't believe in elections, or electing leaders, I believe the people shold govern themselves, through worker solidarity, communalism, and horizontalism, therefore I am not only against a section voting for a leader I am against everyone voting for leader, wow you caught me.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2006 08:45 pm
I'd rather have George Bush elected as a leader than Kropotkin installed as a dictator. Anyone who actually believes in freedom...and not some orwellian euphemism for it...would agree
Ha! Kropotkin a dictator? Kropotkin running for leadership positions? Bush over Kropotkin? You truly are a liberal dumbass.

[harris0]

Originally posted by Cryotank [email protected] 10, 2006 12:49 am
It wasn't a debat topic fuckwad, it was a statement in order to express my annoyance with typical capitalists like AH, and their stupid coattail arguments and general bullshitry.


If you're saying an entire section of society is not allowed to vote for who they want...then you're not an anarchist or a libertarian anything.

I don't believe in elections, or electing leaders, I believe the people shold govern themselves, through worker solidarity, communalism, and horizontalism, therefore I am not only against a section voting for a leader I am against everyone voting for leader, wow you caught me.
Okay...direct democracy, whatever. Democracy means people can vote for whoever they want....as long as there are people of a conservative bent, there will be people in society who will vote for right wing stuff. I repeat, are you saying you would in this case prevent an entire section of society from voting because of their political beliefs? If so, you're not an anarchist or a libertarian anything.

By the way, saying "fuck" every word doesn't impress anybody, or prove any points.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by Alexander [email protected] 09, 2006 08:44 pm
I do not think it correct for you to tell me to "shut the fuck up" on the thread I created and am discussing.




I will tell you and call you whatever I damn well please, thanks, :) .

[harris0]

Originally posted by Cryotank Screams+December 10, 2006 12:52 am--> (Cryotank Screams @ December 10, 2006 12:52 am)
[email protected] 09, 2006 08:45 pm
I'd rather have George Bush elected as a leader than Kropotkin installed as a dictator. Anyone who actually believes in freedom...and not some orwellian euphemism for it...would agree
Ha! Kropotkin a dictator? Kropotkin running for leadership positions? Bush over Kropotkin? You truly are a liberal dumbass. [/b]
Obviously Kropotkin wouldn't run for a leadership position. It was a hypothetical example. You're avoiding my point though. You don't actually believe in democracy.

[Zero]

Cryo, don't avoid his questions. As well, your not making any points or coming any closer to informing people by assuming superiority; moral or otherwise.

harris0, I truely suggest you make more than 1-liner responses. Your not going to prove anything to anyone by throwing out an idea without any supporting arguements.

You two should both take this to the Theory forum if you want to talk about Multi-Party vs Direct Democracy.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Cryotank Screams

It is not my nature to report people here, but your comments do not aid in the discussion and are mere name calling. I have reported your conduct. Please refrain from "calling me out" in the forum in future.

AH

[Cryotank Screams]

Democracy means people can vote for whoever they want....as long as there are people of a conservative bent, there will be people in society who will vote for right wing stuff. I repeat, are you saying you would in this case prevent an entire section of society from voting because of their political beliefs? If so, you're not an anarchist or a libertarian anything.

Voting and elections is not something to glorified, and exalted simply because these word imply some sort of freedom, and in actuality I would be willing to argue in most contexts they would mean the opposite, at any rate elections are meant to elect the leader who would best run the state, and the people, and be a leader, that is the very essence of democracy, therefore allowing people who would not do so, and allow him or her to be voted upon and elected, just because said person can sell the people snake oil the best seems both unfair and exploitive to the people.

Speaking in Communisitic terms of course.


By the way, saying "fuck" every word doesn't impress anybody, or prove any points.

I have a very wide scoping vocabulary and if truly wish for me to prove my intellectual, cynical, and often vitrolic speaking prowess I shall and could very well do so, but do not by any means think that I am not perfectly capable of using a dazzling array of complex and "big," words, I choose to use such crud and shock packed language because it gets my point across quickly and without any chance of confusion, and truly cursing is the spice of language.

[harris0]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2006 01:01 am

You two should both take this to the Theory forum if you want to talk about Multi-Party vs Direct Democracy.
I don't want to leave out the resricted members who are involved in the discussion.

[Cryotank Screams]

Acutually I do, and I am not avoiding anything.


Cryo, don't avoid his questions. As well, your not making any points or coming any closer to informing people by assuming superiority; moral or otherwise.

I am not assuming or trying to assume superiority, in any sense.


It is not my nature to report people here, but your comments do not aid in the discussion and are mere name calling. I have reported your conduct. Please refrain from "calling me out" in the forum in future.

Boo fucking hoo, trying to give me a warning point, for telling you to shut up with your stupidity, and then saying I have the freedom on a message board to say and call you whatever I please, and in any thread of my choosing, wow; snitch, <_< :D .

[harris0]

Originally posted by Cryotank [email protected] 10, 2006 01:08 am
Voting and elections is not something to glorified, and exalted simply because these word imply some sort of freedom, and in actuality I would be willing to argue in most contexts they would mean the opposite, at any rate elections are meant to elect the leader who would best run the state, and the people, and be a leader, that is the very essence of democracy, therefore allowing people who would not do so, and allow him or her to be voted upon and elected, just because said person can sell the people snake oil the best seems both unfair and exploitive.
All right...I&#39;m not sure if you&#39;re the one who said you were an anarchist, but you&#39;re not one. What you&#39;re saying is that you support democracy only so long as it results in the election of somebody you support....otherwise you&#39;re willing to suppress the popular will. This probably puts you closer to Stalinist type thinking than that of any libertarian.

[harris0]

If I correctly summarized your beliefs...haha...then GWB is more interested in freedom then you are. You&#39;re a fascist of the left.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2006 09:13 pm
All right...I&#39;m not sure if you&#39;re the one who said you were an anarchist, but you&#39;re not one.
I am an Anarchist, I was speaking of course within the confinds of the Communist political pardadigm, hence why I said speaking in Commnisitic terms of course.


What you&#39;re saying is that you support democracy only so long as it results in the election of somebody you support....

I would not want any one to be elected (personally speaking), however in a post-revolutionary society, and assuming it is a Communist society, I would thus say that only a democracy would be one that allowed Communists and revolutionaries to be voted into any form of power, democratic centralism would be the term.


This probably puts you closer to Stalinist type thinking than that of any libertarian.

Again I was fucking talking about demoracy in post-revolutionary Communist terms, and not about my own person thoughts on democracy.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2006 09:16 pm
If I correctly summarized your beliefs...haha...then GWB is more interested in freedom then you are. You&#39;re a fascist of the left.
You have not, I wasn&#39;t discussing my own personal views of democracy, and there are not fascists in the Left, that is a contradiction in term, and is an oxymoron.

[Jazzratt]

What harris fails to understand that to hold an ideology one must believe that it is right for that ideology to be in place, no compromise.

harris0 serious question, what do you think of the (in)famous Emma Goldman quote on voting?

[harris0]

Originally posted by Cryotank [email protected] 10, 2006 01:24 am

I would not want any one to be elected (personally speaking), however in a post-revolutionary society, and assuming it is a Communist society, I would thus say that only a democracy would be one that allowed Communists and revolutionaries to be voted into any form of power, democratic centralism would be the term.

Direct democracy, representative democracy....it&#39;s not important to my question.

My question is: if the majority of the society&#39;s population voted for something or someone which/who you did not consider "communist" or "revolutionary"...Would you in that situation support suppressing the popular will? A simple yes or no will do. Don&#39;t dodge the question.

[harris0]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2006 01:27 am
What harris fails to understand that to hold an ideology one must believe that it is right for that ideology to be in place, no compromise.

harris0 serious question, what do you think of the (in)famous Emma Goldman quote on voting?
"If voting changed anything, they&#39;d make it illegal".

I agree with it to a certain degree. Corporate sponsored candidates are able to buy more ad time etc, to influence the electorate. That&#39;s true. But do I think that makes voting worthless? Of course not. Does it make voting less a true barometer of the electorates feelings in a society with vast wealth inequalities and no substantive campaign contribution laws? Yes.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2006 09:29 pm
My question is: if the majority of the society&#39;s population voted for something or someone which/who you did not consider "communist" or "revolutionary"...Would you in that situation support suppressing the popular will? A simple yes or no will do. Don&#39;t dodge the question.
Clever trap, either way I answer I will be going against my beliefs, and if I give my true answer you will claim that I am dodging the question, however regardless my answer is niether no or yes, because I personally, would not want anyone, Communist or otherwise in power, I would want the people to run the people.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by harris0+December 10, 2006 01:37 am--> (harris0 @ December 10, 2006 01:37 am)
[email protected] 10, 2006 01:27 am
What harris fails to understand that to hold an ideology one must believe that it is right for that ideology to be in place, no compromise.

harris0 serious question, what do you think of the (in)famous Emma Goldman quote on voting?
"If voting changed anything, they&#39;d make it illegal".

I agree with it to a certain degree. Corporate sponsored candidates are able to buy more ad time etc, to influence the electorate. That&#39;s true. But do I think that makes voting worthless? Of course not. Does it make voting less a true barometer of the electorates feelings in a society with vast wealth inequalities and no substantive campaign contribution laws? Yes. [/b]
So, you recognise the crrent democracy is a sham? Do you think that we would be able to make a more just democracy simply through voting? I shall assume not, although if you think we can please ignore the rest of this:
If we made the proletariat class-conscious and created a socialist government system followed by introducing democracy in a free and fair manner, would you support that? Or would we be shoving socialism down the people&#39;s throats?

[harris0]

Originally posted by Cryotank Screams+December 10, 2006 01:39 am--> (Cryotank Screams @ December 10, 2006 01:39 am)
[email protected] 09, 2006 09:29 pm
My question is: if the majority of the society&#39;s population voted for something or someone which/who you did not consider "communist" or "revolutionary"...Would you in that situation support suppressing the popular will? A simple yes or no will do. Don&#39;t dodge the question.
Clever trap, either way I answer I will be going against my beliefs, and if I give my true answer you will claim that I am dodging the question, however regardless my answer is niether no or yes, because I personally, would not want anyone, Communist or otherwise in power, I would want the people to run the people. [/b]
I&#39;m actually not trying to trap you...I&#39;m just trying to get a hold on your beliefs.

You say you want the "people to run the people". In this case you would support them voting in a direction which you personally do not support? If so, I applaud you. This is what it means to be a citizen of a democratic society.

[Cryotank Screams]

I&#39;m actually not trying to trap you...I&#39;m just trying to get a hold on your beliefs.
I told you awhile ago that I believe in direct democracy, and am an Anarchist, and that I was arguing in democratic centralist and Communist terms, however to your credit, my posts are confusing in this thread, so thus I see the confusion.


In this case you would support them voting in a direction which you personally do not support?

No, I would not support them voting, I would infact do all I could to get them not to vote for anyone.

[harris0]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+December 10, 2006 01:40 am--> (Jazzratt @ December 10, 2006 01:40 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2006 01:37 am

[email protected] 10, 2006 01:27 am
What harris fails to understand that to hold an ideology one must believe that it is right for that ideology to be in place, no compromise.

harris0 serious question, what do you think of the (in)famous Emma Goldman quote on voting?
"If voting changed anything, they&#39;d make it illegal".

I agree with it to a certain degree. Corporate sponsored candidates are able to buy more ad time etc, to influence the electorate. That&#39;s true. But do I think that makes voting worthless? Of course not. Does it make voting less a true barometer of the electorates feelings in a society with vast wealth inequalities and no substantive campaign contribution laws? Yes.
So, you recognise the crrent democracy is a sham? Do you think that we would be able to make a more just democracy simply through voting? I shall assume not, although if you think we can please ignore the rest of this:
If we made the proletariat class-conscious and created a socialist government system followed by introducing democracy in a free and fair manner, would you support that? Or would we be shoving socialism down the people&#39;s throats? [/b]
Look things aren&#39;t black and white. It&#39;s not either a sham or a model democratic utopia.


If we made the proletariat class-conscious and created a socialist government system followed by introducing democracy in a free and fair manner, would you support that? Or would we be shoving socialism down the people&#39;s throats?

Let me see if I understand (not trying to be sarcastic)...You&#39;re asking if I would agree to install a government against the will of the majority of society....make them recieve politcal &#39;re-education&#39; (whatever that might mean)....before eventually allowing democracy to reappear? If I have summarized you correctly, no I would not agree to that.

[harris0]

Originally posted by Cryotank [email protected] 10, 2006 01:46 am

I&#39;m actually not trying to trap you...I&#39;m just trying to get a hold on your beliefs.
I told you awhile ago that I believe in direct democracy, and am an Anarchist, and that I was arguing in democratic centralist and Communist terms, however to your credit, my posts are confusing in this thread, so thus I see the confusion.


In this case you would support them voting in a direction which you personally do not support?

No, I would not support them voting, I would infact do all I could to get them not to vote for anyone.
You&#39;re still missing my question I think.

Right...but they still vote for someone or something you disagree with. At this point would you support suppressing the popular will? Yes or no?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2006 01:49 am
Look things aren&#39;t black and white. It&#39;s not either a sham or a model democratic utopia.
Surely any government brought on by a sham model is illegitimate. Which means, unless the system is perfect we will never supply the people with what they "want".




If we made the proletariat class-conscious and created a socialist government system followed by introducing democracy in a free and fair manner, would you support that? Or would we be shoving socialism down the people&#39;s throats?

Let me see if I understand (not trying to be sarcastic)...You&#39;re asking if I would agree to install a government against the will of the majority of society....make them recieve politcal &#39;re-education&#39; (whatever that might mean)....before eventually allowing democracy to reappear? If I have summarized you correctly, no I would not agree to that. A revolution is a popular movement, you cretin. I&#39;m proposing you support a revolution which puts in place socialism. I did not mention re-education, I simply said the democracy should be introduced after the socialism. Then I asked if this is shoving it down somone&#39;s throat, in your view.
This is not the view I hold, the view I hold would probably get me labeled a tankie by you.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2006 09:51 pm
Right...but they still vote for someone or something you disagree with. At this point would you support suppressing the popular will? Yes or no?
Assuming the party, ideology, and leader involved, is highly reactionary, counter-revolutionary, and generally oppressive, then in that case, I would say yes, however I highly doubt it would be the true will of the people, because generally in elections, the people&#39;s will never realized.

However again it must be pointed out, that I do not support leaders, government, and elections, and in me agreeing to this would be for the over all good of the people and the progression of Socialism.

[harris0]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+December 10, 2006 01:54 am--> (Jazzratt @ December 10, 2006 01:54 am)
[email protected] 10, 2006 01:49 am
Look things aren&#39;t black and white. It&#39;s not either a sham or a model democratic utopia.
Surely any government brought on by a sham model is illegitimate. Which means, unless the system is perfect we will never supply the people with what they "want".




If we made the proletariat class-conscious and created a socialist government system followed by introducing democracy in a free and fair manner, would you support that? Or would we be shoving socialism down the people&#39;s throats?

Let me see if I understand (not trying to be sarcastic)...You&#39;re asking if I would agree to install a government against the will of the majority of society....make them recieve politcal &#39;re-education&#39; (whatever that might mean)....before eventually allowing democracy to reappear? If I have summarized you correctly, no I would not agree to that. A revolution is a popular movement, you cretin. I&#39;m proposing you support a revolution which puts in place socialism. I did not mention re-education, I simply said the democracy should be introduced after the socialism. Then I asked if this is shoving it down somone&#39;s throat, in your view.
This is not the view I hold, the view I hold would probably get me labeled a tankie by you. [/b]
Dude, just chill out please. Doesn&#39;t the constant exchange of insults tire you out a bit? If not, carry on.

I would support a popular revolution that resulted in the forming of some kind of new constitutional convention and the forming of a new democracy in a very, very timely fashion. That said, I don&#39;t see the United States as a country where there are such institutional barriers to change where if the majority of the electorate truly wanted to build a socialist society, that it couldn&#39;t be done democratically within the present system. That&#39;s the U.S....I&#39;d have a different position for different countries.

[Cryotank Screams]

Dude, just chill out please. Doesn&#39;t the constant exchange of insults tire you out a bit?

Why do you and AH get so offended over insults, an cry about it? Plus Jazratt&#39;s insults are the best in town, lol, they make my heart flutter, :P.

[harris0]

For me...so long as we&#39;re not electing ACTUAL nazis (not just the republican type people we like to call "fascists" etc) or there equivalent, I say the popular will should ride.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2006 10:10 pm
Okay, so you would support suppressing the popular will so long as it is sufficiently opposed to your beliefs. And you&#39;re standards for sufficiently opposed are anything short of "communist" or "revolutionary"?
Anything short of a true Leftist leader, ideology, and party, yes, correct.

However I don&#39;t see why it matters considering that I am opposed to elections in general, and of leaders and governments, so all this seems like a bunch hypothetical bullshit.

[harris0]

Originally posted by Cryotank Screams+December 10, 2006 02:13 am--> (Cryotank Screams @ December 10, 2006 02:13 am)
[email protected] 09, 2006 10:10 pm
Okay, so you would support suppressing the popular will so long as it is sufficiently opposed to your beliefs. And you&#39;re standards for sufficiently opposed are anything short of "communist" or "revolutionary"?
Anything short of a true Leftist leader, ideology, and party, yes, correct.

However I don&#39;t see why it matters considering that I am opposed to elections in general, and of leaders and governments, so all this seems like a bunch hypothetical bullshit. [/b]
I think it&#39;s important to figure out how much free reign a "libertarian socialist" gives the people to make decisions for themselves...before that lib soc comes in and goes Stalin on their ass

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2006 10:23 pm
I think it&#39;s important to figure out how much free reign a "libertarian socialist" gives the people to make decisions for themselves...before that lib soc comes in and goes Stalin on their ass
Exactly, infact I would say that the only way to be truly free is for the people to rule the people.

[harris0]

Originally posted by Cryotank Screams+December 10, 2006 02:30 am--> (Cryotank Screams @ December 10, 2006 02:30 am)
[email protected] 09, 2006 10:23 pm
I think it&#39;s important to figure out how much free reign a "libertarian socialist" gives the people to make decisions for themselves...before that lib soc comes in and goes Stalin on their ass
Exactly, infact I would say that the only way to be truly free is for the people to rule the people. [/b]
You&#39;re honestly confusing me...

You want the people to rule the people without leaders. I get it. Direct democracy, etc.

You want the people to rule the people...but if the people decide they want to have a sort of mixed/welfare state like is seen in countries across Europe. At that point you would be opposed to having the people ruling the people? That&#39;s what it sounds like, and it doesn&#39;t sound libertarian at all.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2006 10:35 pm
You want the people to rule the people...but if the people decide they want to have a sort of mixed/welfare state like is seen in countries across Europe. At that point you would be opposed to having the people ruling the people? That&#39;s what it sounds like, and it doesn&#39;t sound libertarian at all.
When I say the people ruling the people, I am speaking of NO government, No state, and NO leaders, and that in a state the people would not be ruling themselves the ruling class, and the leader would be ruling them, so thus if the people "wanted," a state, leader, and government yes, I would obviously be opossed to it.

[harris0]

Got it...you&#39;re opposed to allowing the people&#39;s will to make decisions, so long as it conflicts with your idea of a communist society. Clear as day. But you&#39;re not an Anarchist or a libertarian anything

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2006 10:48 pm
Got it...you&#39;re opposed to allowing the people&#39;s will to make decisions, so long as it conflicts with your idea of a communist society. Clear as day. But you&#39;re not an Anarchist or a libertarian anything
No, you don&#39;t got it.

I said I would not support the people if they "wanted," a state, government, and leader because I find such things as oppressive, and exploitive, and am an Anarchist therefore would it not be natural for me to be oppossed to it? I do not want a Communist society, I want an Anarchist society.

[Zero]

Originally posted by "Cryo"+--> ("Cryo")I am not assuming or trying to assume superiority, in any sense.[/b]
:


Originally posted by "Cryo"+--> ("Cryo")I will tell you and call you whatever I damn well please, thanks.[/b]

"Cryo"@
You truly are a liberal dumbass.

"Cryo"
I have a very wide scoping vocabulary and if truly wish for me to prove my intellectual, cynical, and often vitrolic speaking prowess I shall and could very well do so

If you don&#39;t like something, don&#39;t just call it names, refute it.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2006 10:54 pm
If you don&#39;t like something, don&#39;t just call it names, refute it.
Why can&#39;t I do both? :unsure:

[harris0]

Originally posted by Cryotank Screams+December 10, 2006 02:53 am--> (Cryotank Screams @ December 10, 2006 02:53 am)
[email protected] 09, 2006 10:48 pm
Got it...you&#39;re opposed to allowing the people&#39;s will to make decisions, so long as it conflicts with your idea of a communist society. Clear as day. But you&#39;re not an Anarchist or a libertarian anything
No, you don&#39;t got it.

I said I would not support the people if they "wanted," a state, government, and leader because I find such things as oppressive, and exploitive, and am an Anarchist therefore would it not be natural for me to be oppossed to it? I do not want a Communist society, I want an Anarchist society. [/b]
Anarchist/Communist the end result that both want is essentially the same.

But I do get it. You are opposed to the people &#39;ruling&#39; (or whatever verb you want to use) themselves via direct democracy, so long as the people&#39;s will is not identical to your vision of an anarchist society. If they don&#39;t democratically choose to be anarchists, you would support forcing them to be. That&#39;s what you said, and that&#39;s what makes you more authoritarian then any capitalist or right winger I know.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2006 10:58 pm
But I do get it. You are opposed to the people &#39;ruling&#39; (or whatever verb you want to use) themselves via direct democracy, so long as the people&#39;s will is not identical to your vision of an anarchist society. If they don&#39;t democratically choose to be anarchists, you would support forcing them to be. That&#39;s what you said, and that&#39;s what makes you more authoritarian then any capitalist or right winger I know.
Your not getting it at all, I am against rulers, master, governments, states, and that there would be none of those things in an Anarchist society, direct democracy is where the entire collective would make a decision upona given subject, it does not imply electing an official.

I want a Anarchist revolution yes, however I am not for forcing the working class via force, or authoritarian means, and that said revolution would be a majority revolution, therefore, it would not require force.

Don&#39;t say you get something if you don&#39;t, and you obviously don&#39;t.

If this helps clear up confusion, before in our debate I was arguing about democratic centralism, and such, not my view of revolution and democracy, as I have stated many times, but I guess your not getting it.

[harris0]

Originally posted by Cryotank Screams+December 10, 2006 03:06 am--> (Cryotank Screams @ December 10, 2006 03:06 am)
[email protected] 09, 2006 10:58 pm
But I do get it. You are opposed to the people &#39;ruling&#39; (or whatever verb you want to use) themselves via direct democracy, so long as the people&#39;s will is not identical to your vision of an anarchist society. If they don&#39;t democratically choose to be anarchists, you would support forcing them to be. That&#39;s what you said, and that&#39;s what makes you more authoritarian then any capitalist or right winger I know.
Your not getting it at all, I am against rulers, master, governments, states, and that there would be none of those things in an Anarchist society, direct democracy is where the entire collective would make a decision upona given subject, it does not imply electing an official.

I want a Anarchist revolution yes, however I am not for forcing the working class via force, or authoritarian means, and that said revolution would be a majority revolution, therefore, it would not require force.

Don&#39;t say you get something if you don&#39;t, and you obviously don&#39;t.

If this helps clear up confusion, before in our debate I was arguing about democratic centralism, and such, not my view of revolution and democracy, as I have stated many times, but I guess your not getting it. [/b]
So now it sounds like you&#39;re changing your position.

Before--when I asked whether you would be in favor of supressing the popular will if the people democratically decided they wanted to live in a say, capitalist-welfare state. You said yes.

Now it sounds like you&#39;re sayig no, you wouldn&#39;t supress the popular will. Which is it?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2006 01:59 am
Dude, just chill out please. Doesn&#39;t the constant exchange of insults tire you out a bit? If not, carry on.
&#39;Exchange&#39; implies some kind of two way relationship in the insults. Unless you&#39;re witless enough to believe you&#39;ve posted anything worthy of the term &#39;insult&#39; than I suggest the word you use should be &#39;barrage&#39;. No, my barraging people with insults does not tire me out any more than typing normally.


I would support a popular revolution that resulted in the forming of some kind of new constitutional convention and the forming of a new democracy in a very, very timely fashion. That said, I don&#39;t see the United States as a country where there are such institutional barriers to change where if the majority of the electorate truly wanted to build a socialist society, that it couldn&#39;t be done democratically within the present system. That&#39;s the U.S....I&#39;d have a different position for different countries.

Sounds liberal to me. Do you not follow the idea then, that class exploitation is always wrong? To analgoise it - do you feel people should have the right to choose to be abused by others?

[Cryotank Screams]

So now it sounds like you&#39;re changing your position.

No.


Before--when I asked whether you would be in favor of supressing the popular will if the people democratically decided they wanted to live in a say, capitalist-welfare state. You said yes.

Hypothetically speaking, I would support, and not condemn that action of the party involved, if I had no alternative answer or position, other than yes or no.


Now it sounds like you&#39;re sayig no, you wouldn&#39;t supress the popular will. Which is it?

I have explained this many times already, we are just going in circles, over and over, so if you don&#39;t get by now, tough luck.

[harris0]

Originally posted by Cryotank [email protected] 10, 2006 07:32 pm



Before--when I asked whether you would be in favor of supressing the popular will if the people democratically decided they wanted to live in a say, capitalist-welfare state. You said yes.
Then I DO understand. Your words speak for themselves.

You are opposed to the people &#39;ruling&#39; (or whatever verb you want to use) themselves via direct democracy, so long as the people&#39;s will is not identical to your vision of an anarchist society. If they don&#39;t democratically choose to be anarchists, you would support FORCING them to be. That&#39;s what you have said more than once, and that&#39;s what makes you more authoritarian then any capitalist or right winger I know.

You&#39;re not an anarchist.

[harris0]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+December 10, 2006 07:21 pm--> (Jazzratt @ December 10, 2006 07:21 pm)
[email protected] 10, 2006 01:59 am
Dude, just chill out please. Doesn&#39;t the constant exchange of insults tire you out a bit? If not, carry on.
&#39;Exchange&#39; implies some kind of two way relationship in the insults. Unless you&#39;re witless enough to believe you&#39;ve posted anything worthy of the term &#39;insult&#39; than I suggest the word you use should be &#39;barrage&#39;. No, my barraging people with insults does not tire me out any more than typing normally.


I would support a popular revolution that resulted in the forming of some kind of new constitutional convention and the forming of a new democracy in a very, very timely fashion. That said, I don&#39;t see the United States as a country where there are such institutional barriers to change where if the majority of the electorate truly wanted to build a socialist society, that it couldn&#39;t be done democratically within the present system. That&#39;s the U.S....I&#39;d have a different position for different countries.

Sounds liberal to me. Do you not follow the idea then, that class exploitation is always wrong? To analgoise it - do you feel people should have the right to choose to be abused by others? [/b]
I see it as class exploitation, but other people have the right to see it however they themselves do, and vote accordinginly. That&#39;s how democracy works. Simple as that.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by harris0+December 10, 2006 07:56 pm--> (harris0 @ December 10, 2006 07:56 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2006 07:21 pm

[email protected]December 10, 2006 01:59 am
Dude, just chill out please. Doesn&#39;t the constant exchange of insults tire you out a bit? If not, carry on.
&#39;Exchange&#39; implies some kind of two way relationship in the insults. Unless you&#39;re witless enough to believe you&#39;ve posted anything worthy of the term &#39;insult&#39; than I suggest the word you use should be &#39;barrage&#39;. No, my barraging people with insults does not tire me out any more than typing normally.


I would support a popular revolution that resulted in the forming of some kind of new constitutional convention and the forming of a new democracy in a very, very timely fashion. That said, I don&#39;t see the United States as a country where there are such institutional barriers to change where if the majority of the electorate truly wanted to build a socialist society, that it couldn&#39;t be done democratically within the present system. That&#39;s the U.S....I&#39;d have a different position for different countries.

Sounds liberal to me. Do you not follow the idea then, that class exploitation is always wrong? To analgoise it - do you feel people should have the right to choose to be abused by others?
I see it as class exploitation, but other people have the right to see it however they themselves do, and vote accordinginly. That&#39;s how democracy works. Simple as that. [/b]
So you propose an entire system based on this (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/bandwagn.html)? Even though you know that people are exploited and the current system is terrible, you&#39;ll support it because it&#39;s popular? What the fuck is wrong with you?

[harris0]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+December 10, 2006 08:06 pm--> (Jazzratt @ December 10, 2006 08:06 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2006 07:56 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2006 07:21 pm

[email protected] 10, 2006 01:59 am
Dude, just chill out please. Doesn&#39;t the constant exchange of insults tire you out a bit? If not, carry on.
&#39;Exchange&#39; implies some kind of two way relationship in the insults. Unless you&#39;re witless enough to believe you&#39;ve posted anything worthy of the term &#39;insult&#39; than I suggest the word you use should be &#39;barrage&#39;. No, my barraging people with insults does not tire me out any more than typing normally.


I would support a popular revolution that resulted in the forming of some kind of new constitutional convention and the forming of a new democracy in a very, very timely fashion. That said, I don&#39;t see the United States as a country where there are such institutional barriers to change where if the majority of the electorate truly wanted to build a socialist society, that it couldn&#39;t be done democratically within the present system. That&#39;s the U.S....I&#39;d have a different position for different countries.

Sounds liberal to me. Do you not follow the idea then, that class exploitation is always wrong? To analgoise it - do you feel people should have the right to choose to be abused by others?
I see it as class exploitation, but other people have the right to see it however they themselves do, and vote accordinginly. That&#39;s how democracy works. Simple as that.
So you propose an entire system based on this (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/bandwagn.html)? Even though you know that people are exploited and the current system is terrible, you&#39;ll support it because it&#39;s popular? What the fuck is wrong with you? [/b]
My computer isn&#39;t downloading whatever picture you posted. But I propose a system based on democracy, and self-governance, yes.

[Cryotank Screams]

Then I DO understand. Your words speak for themselves.

No you FUCKING DON&#39;T, and you are really beginning to piss me the FUCK OFF, don&#39;t sit there and say you know, because every time you have said you again DON&#39;T HAVE A FUCKING CLUE, even though I have explained it time and time again, you still come back with the same argument.

I said if I had to pick yes or no on s agreeing to the decision of a Communist society “suppressing,” the alleged "popular," will to elect a capitalist leader, I would pick yes for the overall good of the people, and of international Socialism, however this means I would not condemn the people that made this decision, but I would not go along or join in the party doing it, because I do not believe in such things as leaders, the ideology, and elections.

Given the option, I would urge the people against both systems, and try to create an Anarchist revolution, and not vote for either canidate, and party.


You are opposed to the people &#39;ruling&#39; (or whatever verb you want to use) themselves via direct democracy, so long as the people&#39;s will is not identical to your vision of an anarchist society. If they don&#39;t democratically choose to be anarchists, you would support FORCING them to be. That&#39;s what you have said more than once, and that&#39;s what makes you more authoritarian then any capitalist or right winger I know.

You truly are a fucking dumbass, I answered this before, I have answered you before many times, I have refuted your claim many times, kindly shut the fuck up.

I believe in direct democracy meaning I believe that people have no rulers, or government, or elections for such things and that people rule and govern themselves autonomously through collectives and federations, and that decision making is based upon direct democracy.

I WAS not talking about an Anarchist society when saying yes, I was talking about in the confines of a Communist society, which is what the debate was about.

Again, kindly shut the fuck up.


You&#39;re not an anarchist.

If you would actually read what I write it is clearly evident that I am, you don&#39;t even fucking know the concept of drect democracy, and of Anarchist theory, revolution and such, so you have no base to make an outrageous, and insulting claim.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2006 08:09 pm
My computer isn&#39;t downloading whatever picture you posted. But I propose a system based on democracy, and self-governance, yes.
It wasn&#39;t a picture you witless pisspipe. It was pointing out that the only argument you have for a certian government staying in power rests on an argumentum ad populum.

[jasmine]

Cryotank Spleens - go talk to your psychiatrist.

[harris0]

Originally posted by Cryotank [email protected] 10, 2006 08:11 pm

Then I DO understand. Your words speak for themselves.

No you FUCKING DON&#39;T, and you are really beginning to piss me the FUCK OFF, don&#39;t sit there and say you know, because every time you have said you again DON&#39;T HAVE A FUCKING CLUE, even though I have explained it time and time again, you still come back with the same argument.

I said if I had to pick yes or no on s agreeing to the decision of a Communist society “suppressing,” the alleged "popular," will to elect a capitalist leader, I would pick yes for the overall good of the people, and of international Socialism, however this means I would not condemn the people that made this decision, but I would not go along or join in the party doing it, because I do not believe in such things as leaders, the ideology, and elections.

Given the option, I would urge the people against both systems, and try to create an Anarchist revolution, and not vote for either canidate, and party.


You are opposed to the people &#39;ruling&#39; (or whatever verb you want to use) themselves via direct democracy, so long as the people&#39;s will is not identical to your vision of an anarchist society. If they don&#39;t democratically choose to be anarchists, you would support FORCING them to be. That&#39;s what you have said more than once, and that&#39;s what makes you more authoritarian then any capitalist or right winger I know.

You truly are a fucking dumbass, I answered this before, I have answered you before many times, I have refuted your claim many times, kindly shut the fuck up.

I believe in direct democracy meaning I believe that people have no rulers, or government, or elections for such things and that people rule and govern themselves autonomously through collectives and federations, and that decision making is based upon direct democracy.

I WAS not talking about an Anarchist society when saying yes, I was talking about in the confines of a Communist society, which is what the debate was about.

Again, kindly shut the fuck up.


You&#39;re not an anarchist.

If you would actually read what I write it is clearly evident that I am, you don&#39;t even fucking know the concept of drect democracy, and of Anarchist theory, revolution and such, so you have no base to make an outrageous, and insulting claim.
Did I touch a nerve with the closet authoritarian?

You don&#39;t believe in freedom and direct democracy if you only believe it in when the vote goes your way (and would support a forced suppression of the majority&#39;s will).

As for assuming that you know what is in the people&#39;s best interests better than they do--and being willing to support forcing your belief onto the people--now you&#39;re sounding like a Leninist/Stalinist.


BOTTOM LINE: You only support democracy (direct or otherwise) when the people vote your way. Therefore, you are extremely authoritarian. George W. Bush has more libertarian cred, then you do. By far.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2006 04:13 pm
Cryotank Spleens - go talk to your psychiatrist.
Cryotank Screams*

Wow, insulting me, because I see a shrink, how clever, :o.

Jasmine, how about you go take some hydrogen cyanide?

[jasmine]

I should apologise for the behaviour of Cryotank Spleen. He&#39;s abusive and irrational but he is undergoing treatment so we&#39;ll have to hope for the best. Maybe he&#39;ll respond to treatment.

[harris0]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+December 10, 2006 08:11 pm--> (Jazzratt @ December 10, 2006 08:11 pm)
[email protected] 10, 2006 08:09 pm
My computer isn&#39;t downloading whatever picture you posted. But I propose a system based on democracy, and self-governance, yes.
It wasn&#39;t a picture you witless pisspipe. It was pointing out that the only argument you have for a certian government staying in power rests on an argumentum ad populum. [/b]
You win.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by harris0+December 10, 2006 08:20 pm--> (harris0 @ December 10, 2006 08:20 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2006 08:11 pm

[email protected] 10, 2006 08:09 pm
My computer isn&#39;t downloading whatever picture you posted. But I propose a system based on democracy, and self-governance, yes.
It wasn&#39;t a picture you witless pisspipe. It was pointing out that the only argument you have for a certian government staying in power rests on an argumentum ad populum.
You win. [/b]
Wow. My esteem for you has actually shot up. YOu haven&#39;t ponced about pretendending to have an argument to retreat to, you haven&#39;t attacked minor detials of the argument, you haven&#39;t simply chosen to stop posting. You&#39;ve actually conceded. You&#39;re the second person I&#39;ve seen do this in however many months I&#39;ve been on here. Congratulations, you made me, for however brief a moment, break a smile.

:D

Thanks for the argument.

[Cryotank Screams]

Did I touch a nerve with the closet authoritarian?

Trying misrepresent me, and slander me based upon idiocy time and time again, hmm,...yea it&#39;s a little bit annoying don&#39;t you think?


You don&#39;t believe in freedom and direct democracy if you only believe it in when the vote goes your way

I wasn&#39;t talking about ANARCHISM, I was talking about COMMUNISM, and if I had no other choice but yes or no, would I agree with their decision, and also I gave answer to if I had an alternate choice besides yes or no, and what I would rather see happen.


As for assuming that you know what is in the people&#39;s best interests better than they do--and being willing to support forcing your belief onto the people--now you&#39;re sounding like a Leninist/Stalinist.

See above statement.


You only support democracy (direct or otherwise) when the people vote your way. Therefore, you are extremely authoritarian. George W. Bush has more libertarian cred, then you do. By far.

Bottom line your a dumbass who can&#39;t read, and has to get the last word in so he repeats something like a parrot over and over, and totally ignores what some writes, when the have explained something numerous times. Therefore I conclude you are a illiterate parrot.

[harris0]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+December 10, 2006 08:24 pm--> (Jazzratt @ December 10, 2006 08:24 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2006 08:20 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2006 08:11 pm

[email protected] 10, 2006 08:09 pm
My computer isn&#39;t downloading whatever picture you posted. But I propose a system based on democracy, and self-governance, yes.
It wasn&#39;t a picture you witless pisspipe. It was pointing out that the only argument you have for a certian government staying in power rests on an argumentum ad populum.
You win.
Wow. My esteem for you has actually shot up. YOu haven&#39;t ponced about pretendending to have an argument to retreat to, you haven&#39;t attacked minor detials of the argument, you haven&#39;t simply chosen to stop posting. You&#39;ve actually conceded. You&#39;re the second person I&#39;ve seen do this in however many months I&#39;ve been on here. Congratulations, you made me, for however brief a moment, break a smile.

:D

Thanks for the argument. [/b]
Well I&#39;m glad I made you happy (honestly).

I was actually joking though. I&#39;m just tired of your abusive debate style.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2006 04:19 pm
He&#39;s abusive and irrational but he is undergoing treatment so we&#39;ll have to hope for the best. Maybe he&#39;ll respond to treatment.
Why are you mocking me for talking with a shrink? Where the fuck do you get off?

[harris0]

Originally posted by Cryotank [email protected] 10, 2006 08:25 pm
Therefore I conclude you are a illiterate parrot.
How did you know? Whatever you say Stalin boy.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by harris0+December 10, 2006 08:28 pm--> (harris0 &#064; December 10, 2006 08:28 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2006 08:24 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2006 08:20 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2006 08:11 pm

[email protected] 10, 2006 08:09 pm
My computer isn&#39;t downloading whatever picture you posted. But I propose a system based on democracy, and self-governance, yes.
It wasn&#39;t a picture you witless pisspipe. It was pointing out that the only argument you have for a certian government staying in power rests on an argumentum ad populum.
You win.
Wow. My esteem for you has actually shot up. YOu haven&#39;t ponced about pretendending to have an argument to retreat to, you haven&#39;t attacked minor detials of the argument, you haven&#39;t simply chosen to stop posting. You&#39;ve actually conceded. You&#39;re the second person I&#39;ve seen do this in however many months I&#39;ve been on here. Congratulations, you made me, for however brief a moment, break a smile.

:D

Thanks for the argument.
Well I&#39;m glad I made you happy (honestly).

I was actually joking though. I&#39;m just tired of your abusive debate style. [/b]
Well that was a fun few moments. My total of people with any hint of intellectual courage is now back down to 1.

Still, I hope you consider the point about the argumentam ad populum.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2006 04:30 pm
How did you know? Whatever you say Stalin boy.
Clever, really; my response, find a pirate to latch on to and kindly um,...piss off?

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Cryotank Spleens - go talk to your psychiatrist.

Oops, you contributed nothing to the discussion again&#33; Why did you post that?


Harris0 - I doubt that you are seriously wounded by internet banter. Respond to Jazzrat&#39;s point, or you&#39;re just running away because you ran out of logic. Better still, a genuine concession.

-Alex

[Krasnaya]

Harris, do you beleive that the USA is a democracy?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Cryotank [email protected] 10, 2006 02:03 am
Jazratt&#39;s insults are the best in town, lol, they make my heart flutter, :P.
:lol: Just read this. It is SO sig&#39;d.

[harris0]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2006 08:51 pm

Cryotank Spleens - go talk to your psychiatrist.

Oops, you contributed nothing to the discussion again&#33; Why did you post that?


Harris0 - I doubt that you are seriously wounded by internet banter. Respond to Jazzrat&#39;s point, or you&#39;re just running away because you ran out of logic. Better still, a genuine concession.

-Alex
Doubt what you want. I feel like we&#39;re retreading the same ground over and over again...I believe in the supporting the democratic process, pretty much until we&#39;re electing genuine Nazis or there equivalent. Jazzrat seems only to support the democratic process so long as the people vote communist.

...Besides that, it&#39;s really unpleasant to speak with Jazzrat.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2006 09:36 pm
Besides that, it&#39;s really unpleasant to speak with Jazzrat.
:lol: Man, can I sig that?

[harris0]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+December 10, 2006 09:39 pm--> (Jazzratt @ December 10, 2006 09:39 pm)
[email protected] 10, 2006 09:36 pm
Besides that, it&#39;s really unpleasant to speak with Jazzrat.
:lol: Man, can I sig that? [/b]
Sure.

[Krasnaya]

Doubt what you want. I feel like we&#39;re retreading the same ground over and over again...I believe in the supporting the democratic process, pretty much until we&#39;re electing genuine Nazis or there equivalent. Jazzrat seems only to support the democratic process so long as the people vote communist.

I dont think you support democracy. You support Bourgeoisie dictatorship.

[red team]

Let&#39;s hear it for democracy&#33; freedom&#33; and stuff&#33;: :lol:

Vote Zaphod Beeblebrox (http://youtube.com/watch?v=jmpS5ubQkng&mode=related&search=)

for the people

democracy

freedom

and stuff...

stuff

people

and freedom...

In no way is he stupid (un-dumb)

in no way is his brain impaired (unimpaired)

No, no. It&#39;s just not true.

He&#39;s smarter than you

and he&#39;s better looking too...

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Lol, flamewar

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2006 09:12 pm
Harris, do you beleive that the USA is a democracy?
Nobody should believe that because it never was a democracy, nor was it ever intended to do so.

Government should govern as little as possible, and individuals should decide for themselves what they&#39;re going to do as often as possible.

[red team]

Government should govern as little as possible, and individuals should decide for themselves what they&#39;re going to do as often as possible.

Alright, I&#39;ve decided for myself that I want to be multi-billionaire owner of a software company, but the position is taken already.

Fine, I&#39;ll lower my expectations. I&#39;ve decided that I want to be a programmer wage-slave for a multi-billion dollar international software company, so that I can support a relatively comfortable middle class existence with two ungrateful consumerist, pop culture following kids and a big spender, fashionista (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fashionista) wife who spends the pay check to compensate for her loneliness and neurosis. While doing that I can make the multi-billionaire owner even richer still by working long hours at the office and making the kids alienated from the family in which they compensate by following foul-mouthed and violent, corporate manufactured pop culture icons and become angry little wiggers (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=wigger) and the lonely wife will compensate by developing a neurotic disorder. Any chance of that taking place? Nope, because the position is taken already by somebody who works long hours at the office while accomplishing all of the above.

Fine, I&#39;ll lower my expectations. I&#39;ve decided that I want to be a homeless bottle and can collector so I can return my daily catch for something to eat or a place to stay. So far the position isn&#39;t taken, but there&#39;s growing competition, so I better stake out my garbage bin and practice on defending my turf by watching bum fights videos.

It seems as if people "deciding for themselves" is a sick joke for majority of people who actually live in this society.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by red [email protected] 11, 2006 07:21 pm

Government should govern as little as possible, and individuals should decide for themselves what they&#39;re going to do as often as possible.

Alright, I&#39;ve decided for myself that I want to be multi-billionaire owner of a software company, but the position is taken already.


:lol:

If you want to be it and you can do it, then go for it.

It really pisses you off that people want to live in a way you don&#39;t approve of, doesn&#39;t it.