Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

General political discussion thread

1,180 replies to this topic
Frank Brown
  • Frank Brown

    Big Homie

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 01 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#571

Posted 02 March 2014 - 06:32 PM Edited by Vlynor, 02 March 2014 - 06:36 PM.

 

If you give the government more control over something, regardless of whether or not it helps or hurts anybody, that is making a bigger government. That's not subjective. When you give somebody more control over something, you are increasing it's scope, power, and ability to do good/bad

So any piece of legislation is an expansion of government, basically? What about subsidies? So infant nutrition programs are a form of government control? The government building a basket ball court in the ghetto- control? You don't see how these view points have a strong, paranoid tinge and shoe their far-right origins?

 

 

 

Uh, yes?

 

If the government controls more, whether it's for the greater good or not, that's expansion. That's larger government. How is it paranoid to recognize what is and what isn't? Having your hands in the distribution of assets and the building of public works is expanding government control no matter how you look at it. 

 

 

You're asking me to show you silence, I hope you realise. You can't quantify a negative.

 

It should be obvious to any objective observer, tbh and I think I've explained it adequately. You can ignore it if you want but it's pretty clear to everyone else that libertarians are conservatives. 

 

 

I've showed you the LP platform, as well as a libertarian on a cable news network stating his views on social issues. But you still insist libertarians aren't fighting for social reform.

 

And ooh. A YouTube channel named Reich Wing Watch mislabeling a Conservative as a Libertarian. That's supportive.

 

A quick search of his name brings up numerous sources labeling him as a conservative. Not a libertarian. They might share similar views, but socially there's a big difference. That's why he's labeled conservative.

 

http://www.foxnews.c...ebsite-reports/

 

http://www.rollingst...douche-20120301

 

I mean, come on. Even FOX claimed him.

 

Edit: f*ck this quote system so hard.


Melchior
  • Melchior

    The blood of our martyrs will water the meadows of France

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Unknown

#572

Posted 02 March 2014 - 06:49 PM

Uh, yes?

I'm still not getting how subsidy and infrastructure are forms of control, or how it increases propensity towards corruption, which is what you seem to be subtly implying. 

 

 

 

I've showed you the LP platform, as well as a libertarian on a cable news network stating his views on social issues.

Yes, and his position was radically different to what the left and the LGBT community want. Giving some half-hearted answer about marriage as a legal institution isn't "socially liberal." He also brought up polygamy, which to me felt like an intentional distancing from the LGBT community. "Yeah I'm in favour of gay marriage... not because of solidarity, it's like.. well we don't want the government involved in marriage do we?"

 

I think you're being wilfully ignorant. I've said several times that they do in fact support legal abortion and same-sex marriage, they just don't freaking do anything about it! But they're out there defending firearm freedom and economic deregulation! 

 

 

 

A quick search of his name brings up numerous sources labeling him as a conservative. Not a libertarian. They might share similar views, but socially there's a big difference. That's why he's labeled conservative.

He's a libertarian. His positions are libertarian and he identifies as a libertarian. What you're seeing is the terms "conservative" and "libertarian" being used interchangeably. 

  • Irviding likes this

Frank Brown
  • Frank Brown

    Big Homie

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 01 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#573

Posted 02 March 2014 - 07:06 PM Edited by Vlynor, 02 March 2014 - 07:28 PM.

I'm still not getting how subsidy and infrastructure are forms of control, or how it increases propensity towards corruption, which is what you seem to be subtly implying. 

 

 


No. I'm not implying that. 

 

If I have the ability to do something without your consent, is that not controlling? If I take a bit of your money and give it to farmers to subsidize corn, which you don't buy, am I not controlling the distribution of your assets?

 

Regardless of whether or not I agree/disagree with it, it is still control.

 


Yes, and his position was radically different to what the left and the LGBT community want. Giving some half-hearted answer about marriage as a legal institution isn't "socially liberal." He also brought up polygamy, which to me felt like an intentional distancing from the LGBT community. "Yeah I'm in favour of gay marriage... not because of solidarity, it's like.. well we don't want the government involved in marriage do we?"

 

I think you're being wilfully ignorant. I've said several times that they do in fact support legal abortion and same-sex marriage, they just don't freaking do anything about it! But they're out there defending firearm freedom and economic deregulation! 

 

 

 

The polygamy point was brought up because it's a commonly used slippery-slope argument by the religious right. "If gays can marry, what's next, polygamy?" He was preempting him. And he clearly said "If we have straight marriage, we need gay marriage." 

 

That sounds like equal rights and solidarity to me. Does it not to you?

 

And "they don't do anything about it"? How do you know? There's a reason I've asked if you've been to conferences/follow libertarians/etc.


 

 

 

A quick search of his name brings up numerous sources labeling him as a conservative. Not a libertarian. They might share similar views, but socially there's a big difference. That's why he's labeled conservative.

He's a libertarian. His positions are libertarian and he identifies as a libertarian. What you're seeing is the terms "conservative" and "libertarian" being used interchangeably. 

 

 

 

That's a case of someone using the wrong term then. The man was a conservative. "Free market" isn't the only criteria for libertarianism. 


Irviding
  • Irviding

    he's going to get into the ring and put boots to asses

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2008
  • United-States

#574

Posted 03 March 2014 - 07:51 AM


No. I'm not implying that. 

 

If I have the ability to do something without your consent, is that not controlling? If I take a bit of your money and give it to farmers to subsidize corn, which you don't buy, am I not controlling the distribution of your assets?

 

Regardless of whether or not I agree/disagree with it, it is still control.

So what? What's the issue with that? The government is here to control 'things', that's it. That's the way it has always been. I don't care whether you're a Republican, Democrat, Federalist, Social Democrat, Social Libertarian, Fascist, Socialist, whatever the f*ck you want to be... the government is tasked with controlling the people that live in it. As long as the people consent to the government, then its control is legitimate. I just fail to see what the problem is. Controlling the distribution of assets is the only way to make an economy work. I don't care how much of a free market system there is, income needs to be redistributed. That's the way it is. We need roads. We need police. We need firemen. That's the way things are.

 

I don't see why you keep attacking Melchior for not following libertarian conferences. You don't need to attend a libertarian conference in person to know what their viewpoints are and disagree with them. He is clearly articulating clear problems with libertarian ideology throughout this thread... the fact that you are debating him back and fourth indicates that you, as a libertarian, recognize that Melchior knows what libertarianism is.... he will tell you that I am the first one to argue with him on other issues (foreign policy mostly) so this is totally impartial... telling people to watch libertarian conferences isn't gonna do anything here.

  • Melchior likes this

Frank Brown
  • Frank Brown

    Big Homie

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 01 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#575

Posted 03 March 2014 - 08:40 AM Edited by Vlynor, 03 March 2014 - 08:42 AM.

 


No. I'm not implying that. 

 

If I have the ability to do something without your consent, is that not controlling? If I take a bit of your money and give it to farmers to subsidize corn, which you don't buy, am I not controlling the distribution of your assets?

 

Regardless of whether or not I agree/disagree with it, it is still control.

So what? What's the issue with that? The government is here to control 'things', that's it. That's the way it has always been. I don't care whether you're a Republican, Democrat, Federalist, Social Democrat, Social Libertarian, Fascist, Socialist, whatever the f*ck you want to be... the government is tasked with controlling the people that live in it. As long as the people consent to the government, then its control is legitimate. I just fail to see what the problem is. Controlling the distribution of assets is the only way to make an economy work. I don't care how much of a free market system there is, income needs to be redistributed. That's the way it is. We need roads. We need police. We need firemen. That's the way things are.

 

I'm not arguing whether or not control is or isn't a good thing. But, he's saying:

 

 

 

A government taking a more active role isn't necessarily a more intrusive government. A "bigger" government (very subjective) isn't necessarily more powerful.

 

Which is f*cking false no matter how you look at it, whether it helps you or not, whether it hurts the poor or hurts the rich. Taking more of an active role is increasing your power and influence. That's becoming a 'bigger' government. There's no subjectivity there. 

 

  • If I can take your money and subsizide the corn industry, that's control.
  • If I can take your money and build new roads with it, that's control.
  • If I can take your money and build a basketball net in the 'ghetto', that's control.
  • If I wasn't doing any of these things before, that's giving me more power, and thus making me bigger and more of an influence.

 

 

 

 

 

I don't see why you keep attacking Melchior for not following libertarian conferences. You don't need to attend a libertarian conference in person to know what their viewpoints are and disagree with them. He is clearly articulating clear problems with libertarian ideology throughout this thread... the fact that you are debating him back and fourth indicates that you, as a libertarian, recognize that Melchior knows what libertarianism is.... he will tell you that I am the first one to argue with him on other issues (foreign policy mostly) so this is totally impartial... telling people to watch libertarian conferences isn't gonna do anything here.

 

 

I'm attacking him for making claims that aren't true. Saying that "libertarians aren't out there defending x, y, and z!" isn't true. If you don't follow the LP, or any prominent libertarians (and no, Breitbart is not a libertarian. Even the channel Melchior linked calls him a conservative) then you wouldn't know what they're doing. You look on any pages for Libertarian leaders and just the LP's in general, you'll clearly see that they take issue with those things. You don't need to be marching at a gay pride parade to be 'speaking out against' something.


Melchior
  • Melchior

    The blood of our martyrs will water the meadows of France

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Unknown

#576

Posted 04 March 2014 - 05:34 AM

Which is f*cking false no matter how you look at it, whether it helps you or not, whether it hurts the poor or hurts the rich. Taking more of an active role is increasing your power and influence. That's becoming a 'bigger' government. There's no subjectivity there. 

But we aren't arguing this. If you just suddenly blurted out "the government technically has control over money because taxes" then you'd be right. But we're talking about expansion of government power. What you're arguing is that when a government buys you baby formula, subsidises your food and power, or irrigates crops for a Native American tribe they're becoming more powerful. That simply isn't true. How do any of those things give the government more power to act against the population?

 

You have a habit of stripping the context of the conversation away from your points to make them more agreeable.

 

 

 

 
And "they don't do anything about it"? How do you know? There's a reason I've asked if you've been to conferences/follow libertarians/etc.

 Once again, they're in the public sphere, I don't need to trawl through Reddit to understand their positions. I've never seen Nick Gillespie talk about gay rights... I've never seen Reason magazine print an article about the issue. Nobody is denying that they theoretically support positions on social issues that are associated with the left. They just don't care and it's what you care about that determines your place on the political spectrum. It's about attitudes, not whether or not you agree with a laundry list of abstract positions.


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Skål, jævler!

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#577

Posted 04 March 2014 - 08:14 AM

Governments can be more active without expanding the mandate which restricts their power. That's about as simple as a response as I can distil to this argument.
  • Melchior likes this

LeVelocar
  • LeVelocar

    Punk-ass Bitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 06 Feb 2013
  • Vietnam

#578

Posted 04 March 2014 - 08:00 PM

Oh no, the government planted some trees along the street! They're becoming larger! Ahhh!

  • Melchior and Mr. House like this

gtamann123
  • gtamann123

    Bang Bang, Skeet Skeet

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Jun 2008
  • United-States

#579

Posted 27 April 2014 - 11:47 PM

http://www.businessi...ng-banks-2014-4

Thoughts? I never knew this is how banks operated. I always thought that in order to give out a loan a bank needed that amount of money held in order to back it.

Surak
  • Surak

    I'm an Alien, too.

  • Paleto Bay Mayor's Office
  • Joined: 16 Nov 2013
  • Mars
  • Funniest Member 2015
    Best Poster [Gen Chat] 2015
    Helpfulness Award
    Best Poster [Gen Chat] 2014
    Second Best Alien

#580

Posted 16 October 2014 - 03:32 PM

 

No people is wholly civilized where a distinction is drawn between stealing an office and stealing a purse.
-Theodore Roosevelt

 

It's election season in the US, how many US citizens here are going to vote?

 

F*cking a', this is what's wrong with America.  No one cares to vote, so the f*cking republicans keep getting re-elected and ruin everything.  Not that the democrats are any better...

 

No Americans here are pumped to vote?


LightningLord
  • LightningLord

    \ (•◡•) /

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 11 Mar 2014
  • United-States
  • April Fools Winner 2015

#581

Posted 16 October 2014 - 03:37 PM Edited by LightningLord411, 16 October 2014 - 03:38 PM.


 

No people is wholly civilized where a distinction is drawn between stealing an office and stealing a purse.
-Theodore Roosevelt

 
It's election season in the US, how many US citizens here are going to vote?
 
F*cking a', this is what's wrong with America.  No one cares to vote, so the f*cking republicans keep getting re-elected and ruin everything.  Not that the democrats are any better...
 
No Americans here are pumped to vote?
If I were old enough to legally vote, probably not. I'm tired of driving around seeing at least 20 signs for elections and stuff. It's over advertising. It feels like a contest to see who advertises the most. Go to YouTube? Ok, time to see tons of ads about elections. On a website? Same thing. Driving around and see signs? Same thing.

Surak
  • Surak

    I'm an Alien, too.

  • Paleto Bay Mayor's Office
  • Joined: 16 Nov 2013
  • Mars
  • Funniest Member 2015
    Best Poster [Gen Chat] 2015
    Helpfulness Award
    Best Poster [Gen Chat] 2014
    Second Best Alien

#582

Posted 16 October 2014 - 03:43 PM

But not voting does nothing to improve that complaint, it just puts you on the outside of it.  The more voters we get, the less control big money has on our elections. Which right now, is pretty much total control. 


BurgerKingpeaceRingpie
  • BurgerKingpeaceRingpie

    Coming soon to a location near you: charming ruins

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 19 Oct 2013
  • None
  • Most Desperate Campaign Poster 2015
    April Fools Winner 2015
    Bloody Ungrateful 2016

#583

Posted 16 October 2014 - 04:39 PM

 


 

No Americans here are pumped to vote?

 

Not even registered :)

quote-if-voting-changed-anything-they-d-

  • Niobium likes this

Surak
  • Surak

    I'm an Alien, too.

  • Paleto Bay Mayor's Office
  • Joined: 16 Nov 2013
  • Mars
  • Funniest Member 2015
    Best Poster [Gen Chat] 2015
    Helpfulness Award
    Best Poster [Gen Chat] 2014
    Second Best Alien

#584

Posted 16 October 2014 - 04:40 PM

And you are proud of that?  Jesus f*cked the pope, man... shameful.

  • Davo the Assassin likes this

BurgerKingpeaceRingpie
  • BurgerKingpeaceRingpie

    Coming soon to a location near you: charming ruins

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 19 Oct 2013
  • None
  • Most Desperate Campaign Poster 2015
    April Fools Winner 2015
    Bloody Ungrateful 2016

#585

Posted 16 October 2014 - 04:41 PM

Yeah, I am. Both the democrats and the republicans represent bourgeois class interests. f*ck 'em.

  • Niobium likes this

Surak
  • Surak

    I'm an Alien, too.

  • Paleto Bay Mayor's Office
  • Joined: 16 Nov 2013
  • Mars
  • Funniest Member 2015
    Best Poster [Gen Chat] 2015
    Helpfulness Award
    Best Poster [Gen Chat] 2014
    Second Best Alien

#586

Posted 16 October 2014 - 04:47 PM

Yeah, I am. Both the democrats and the republicans represent bourgeois class interests. f*ck 'em.

Totally.

 

How can you f*ck em by ignoring any control you or the citizenry has over them?  People who choose not to vote are directly responsible for the state our politics are in now.  You complain about how things are going, yet do nothing to change it. 

 

I hear North Korea is nice this time of year.


Dottie
  • Dottie

    Now with 256 colours!

  • Facade Corporation
  • Joined: 05 Jun 2013
  • North-Korea
  • April Fools Winner 2015

#587

Posted 16 October 2014 - 04:59 PM

 

 

No people is wholly civilized where a distinction is drawn between stealing an office and stealing a purse.
-Theodore Roosevelt

 

It's election season in the US, how many US citizens here are going to vote?

 

F*cking a', this is what's wrong with America.  No one cares to vote, so the f*cking republicans keep getting re-elected and ruin everything.  Not that the democrats are any better...

 

No Americans here are pumped to vote?

 

politics are a joke now. I am and probably will never be excited to vote. 

  • Detective Phelps likes this

BurgerKingpeaceRingpie
  • BurgerKingpeaceRingpie

    Coming soon to a location near you: charming ruins

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 19 Oct 2013
  • None
  • Most Desperate Campaign Poster 2015
    April Fools Winner 2015
    Bloody Ungrateful 2016

#588

Posted 16 October 2014 - 04:59 PM Edited by ShootPeopleNotDope, 16 October 2014 - 05:14 PM.


How can you f*ck em by ignoring any control you or the citizenry has over them? 

 

 

Hey, remember that time we ended the Iraq war when millions of people world-wide took to the streets to protest? Yeah, me neither. Remember that time Obama closed Guantanamo bay, and ended military involvement in the Middle East? Yeah, me neither.

 

People who choose not to vote are directly responsible for the state our politics are in now. 

 

No, the class interests of those in power are directly responsible for the state of politics. Who we vote for makes no difference. The state is an organ of bourgeois class rule, and voting isn't going to change that.

 

 

 You complain about how things are going, yet do nothing to change it. 

 

I'm not interested in reforming capitalism, I want to destroy it.

  • Melchior and Niobium like this

Raavi
  • Raavi

    Z

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 27 Jan 2012
  • None
  • Best Moderator 2015
    Best Moderator 2014
    Winner of World Cup 2014 Prediction League
    Best Forum Ledby 2013
    Most Improved 2013

#589

Posted 16 October 2014 - 05:04 PM

No, the class interests of those in power are directly responsible for the state of politics. 

 

I'd argue the system of legalised bribery is at the forefront of that. 

  • Doc Rikowski and Surak like this

Surak
  • Surak

    I'm an Alien, too.

  • Paleto Bay Mayor's Office
  • Joined: 16 Nov 2013
  • Mars
  • Funniest Member 2015
    Best Poster [Gen Chat] 2015
    Helpfulness Award
    Best Poster [Gen Chat] 2014
    Second Best Alien

#590

Posted 16 October 2014 - 05:10 PM

 


How can you f*ck em by ignoring any control you or the citizenry has over them? 

 

 

Hey, remember that time we ended the Iraq war when millions of people world-wide took to the streets to protest? Yeah, me neither. Remember that time Obama closed Guantanamo bay, and ended military involvement in the Middle East? Yeah, me neither.

 

People who choose not to vote are directly responsible for the state our politics are in now. 

 

No, the class interests of those in power are directly responsible for the state of politics. Who we vote for makes no difference. The state is an organ of bourgeois class rule, and voting isn't going to change that.

 

If there was a larger group of concerned and active voters, corporate money would have been kept away and the things that influenced both Presidents you referenced would have been negated by the influence of the voters.  Right now money gets people elected because citizens do not pay attention or care enough to look into issues themselves and, if they vote at all, vote the way that the party they self identify with votes.  Regardless of the impact those politicians have on their lives.  Look at the vast majority of the the southern US states, they rely desperately on social welfare programs to keep their citizens alive, fed, medicated and in homes, yet they consistently vote for politicians who's campaigns are based upon removing and destroying the programs that keep them alive.

 

Had enough of the US, not the world, protested the war and voted out anyone who voted for the war, Iraq would have been short and we wouldn't be where we are, sitting on the precipice of another potential conflict.  Instead, we focus on who's dick is in who's mouth, or who made a public flub of words while ripping apart the private lives and families of those who run, pushing out potential great leaders while paving the road for people who are in no way qualified to lead a murder of crows to a rotting corpse, let alone a nation to war.  Or better yet, away from war.

 

By burying your head in the sand and just putting up with what they give us, like gruel in a sh*tty wooden bowl, you help to propagate the horrible system that we have.  Obama is a great, great disappointment as he is nothing he promised, and yet the other side is able to frame him as a pariah, as a radical, and galvanize their supporters against him, when in fact he should be a republican hero.  This is all possible because no one pays any attention.

 

They mail the damn ballot along with a book explaining every issue to your house, you don't even need to vote on anything.  You can just do a few minutes of internet research (even with XVIDEOS open on a different tab) fill out a few boxes or circles, plop that sucker back in the mail box and be done with it.  Less effort than ordering a big mac, and you could start to make a difference.

 

I beg every American who isn't voting this year to please re-consider for the next one, register and do the legwork.  It isn't all lost... yet.


Surak
  • Surak

    I'm an Alien, too.

  • Paleto Bay Mayor's Office
  • Joined: 16 Nov 2013
  • Mars
  • Funniest Member 2015
    Best Poster [Gen Chat] 2015
    Helpfulness Award
    Best Poster [Gen Chat] 2014
    Second Best Alien

#591

Posted 16 October 2014 - 06:40 PM

So vote. It's good for your soul.


theworldfamous
  • theworldfamous

    all your game are belong to I

  • Members
  • Joined: 16 Sep 2011

#592

Posted 16 October 2014 - 06:49 PM

Libertarian...not the Ron Paul brand of conservative libertarianism though. I'm not an American.

Mine is rooted in a strict interpretation of liberalism and places a lot more emphasis on voluntarism, so I'm not against things like welfare.. I am just very much in favor of asking 'should the government be the one doing this?' all the time. Much more should be decided and provided for inside the local community.  


gtamann123
  • gtamann123

    Bang Bang, Skeet Skeet

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Jun 2008
  • United-States

#593

Posted 16 October 2014 - 07:23 PM


No, the class interests of those in power are directly responsible for the state of politics. 

 
I'd argue the system of legalised bribery is at the forefront of that. 
Agreed. Our form of government itself isn't that bad and would serve the will of the majority IF lobbying weren't allowed. It's kind of ridiculous that it is

BurgerKingpeaceRingpie
  • BurgerKingpeaceRingpie

    Coming soon to a location near you: charming ruins

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 19 Oct 2013
  • None
  • Most Desperate Campaign Poster 2015
    April Fools Winner 2015
    Bloody Ungrateful 2016

#594

Posted 16 October 2014 - 08:27 PM

@ AlienTwo:I think in order to fully understand my argument, you have to understand I am neither conservative, nor liberal, neither democrat, nor republican. I am, first and foremost, an insurrectionary anarchist-communist. I have no desire to reform capitalism. I have no faith in the bourgeoisie, nor their social-democracy, to provide for the needs of all. I recognize that the existence of the state--that is, a monopoly on force--coincides with the development of class society, and that the state will only cease to exist when all existing social conditions--namely those of class, race, and gender--are overthrown. Since a global communist revolution seems unlikely--at least in my lifetime--my prerogative is to foster class consciousness, participate in class struggle, and attack the bourgeoisie until I am unable to do so--and of course, the illegitimate hierarchies and institutions of which they have established. At the same time though, we should be forming alternatives to the existing by reclaiming social space, our workplaces, and forming inclusive communities that negate their power. To put it simply, on the question of whether we should reform capital, I say 'death to capital, long live anarchy.'

 

What does this have to do with voting? Well, for one, I don't think any political party will ever be able to fix this system, because there is nothing 'wrong' with it. It is functioning exactly as it should: in the interests of bosses and landowners, at the expense of labor and the planet. It is a mistake to assume that we can have a fair, gentle, safe capitalism, and more importantly, a mistake that we can rely on bourgeois politicians to bring us the society we need. As I mentioned in the 'Have a Question?' thread, the state is an organ of class rule. Whether we're discussing the U.S., or Venezuela, the U.K. or North Korea, we find hierarchy; we find a social class that is entirely distinct from the majority--distinct in interests, lifestyle, power, and privilege. Even the Bolsheviks, what with their squashing of the Soviets (workers' committees), the Kronstadt rebellion, the Ukraine free-territory, and the Hungarian revolution--and with their mass-executions and purges--we're wholly representative of bourgeois class interests.

 

 


If there was a larger group of concerned and active voters, corporate money would have been kept away and the things that influenced both Presidents you referenced would have been negated by the influence of the voters.

 

Why? Sounds like wishful thinking.

 

Look at the vast majority of the the southern US states, they rely desperately on social welfare programs to keep their citizens alive, fed, medicated and in homes, yet they consistently vote for politicians who's campaigns are based upon removing and destroying the programs that keep them alive.


 

 

People routinely act against their own objective class interests. No surprise there.

 

 


Had enough of the US, not the world, protested the war and voted out anyone who voted for the war, Iraq would have been short and we wouldn't be where we are, sitting on the precipice of another potential conflict.  Instead, we focus on who's dick is in who's mouth, or who made a public flub of words while ripping apart the private lives and families of those who run, pushing out potential great leaders while paving the road for people who are in no way qualified to lead a murder of crows to a rotting corpse, let alone a nation to war.  Or better yet, away from war.

 

 

Again, sounds like wishful thinking. The anti-war movement of the '60s too accomplished f*ck all.

 

 


 

By burying your head in the sand and just putting up with what they give us, like gruel in a sh*tty wooden bowl, you help to propagate the horrible system that we have.

Which is exactly why I'm not going to vote and pretend I'm changing the world.


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Skål, jævler!

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#595

Posted 16 October 2014 - 08:42 PM

But doesn't your mere participation in society- and presumably, due to the fact you're posting from somewhere other than a prison cell, inaction with regard to the violent overthrow of the class system and conflict against the bourgeoise amount to a tacit condoning of the status quo, and fundamentally form as much "wishful thinking" as that which you pour scorn on? I mean, you've expressed a requirement, albeit reluctant, to engage with the very political-economic-social triad to which you express such disdain for, so is not your belief in the violent revolution of the proletariat as much vapid idealism as attempting to reform capitalism to produce a fairer society?

BurgerKingpeaceRingpie
  • BurgerKingpeaceRingpie

    Coming soon to a location near you: charming ruins

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 19 Oct 2013
  • None
  • Most Desperate Campaign Poster 2015
    April Fools Winner 2015
    Bloody Ungrateful 2016

#596

Posted 16 October 2014 - 09:04 PM

My participation in empire is based entirely on my own self-interest. I cannot 'opt-out' of capitalism, and indeed I am apart of the reproduction of capital--as any member of the working class is. You can not escape a social relationship that exists in every corner of the globe. For obvious reasons, I will not disclose the extent of my activities to anyone, but the fact that I'm not posting from a prison cell means nothing.

 

Capitalism is premised on exploitation of the working-class, it cannot be reformed to benefit the interests of the majority. In any case, I'm not an idealist, I believe in the material need for revolution.

  • Melchior likes this

FranklinDeRoosevelt
  • FranklinDeRoosevelt

    32nd President of Los Santos

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 02 Aug 2013

#597

Posted 16 October 2014 - 09:06 PM Edited by FranklinDeRoosevelt, 16 October 2014 - 09:07 PM.

What I feel about politics? In today's world, and according to the past few hundred years or so, politics in many ways is just a dirty, evil and uncivilised game that is ruining the world as it stands. In actual definition of politics, it is supposed to be a good thing only, and my definition along with many others is that politics should only work at best interests of the public and the government should do the best effort to maintain a balanced economy as well as a mantained health sector, education, not to get into a war or at least try not to and overall keep the country in excellent shape. But is that the reality? LMAO, NO!

  • Detective Phelps and Crates Of Gold like this

BurgerKingpeaceRingpie
  • BurgerKingpeaceRingpie

    Coming soon to a location near you: charming ruins

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 19 Oct 2013
  • None
  • Most Desperate Campaign Poster 2015
    April Fools Winner 2015
    Bloody Ungrateful 2016

#598

Posted 17 October 2014 - 04:20 AM

So, I decided to take the political compass test earlier:

CwmcO1L.png

so libertarian

much left

wow

  • Melchior and Frank Brown like this

gtamann123
  • gtamann123

    Bang Bang, Skeet Skeet

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Jun 2008
  • United-States

#599

Posted 17 October 2014 - 04:39 AM Edited by gtamann123, 17 October 2014 - 04:43 AM.

Here's my most recent results

pcgraphpng_zpscjfakhmt.png

BurgerKingpeaceRingpie
  • BurgerKingpeaceRingpie

    Coming soon to a location near you: charming ruins

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 19 Oct 2013
  • None
  • Most Desperate Campaign Poster 2015
    April Fools Winner 2015
    Bloody Ungrateful 2016

#600

Posted 17 October 2014 - 04:42 AM

your results are literally hitler





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users