|
|
 |
zt-in-hell |
+ |
Wednesday, September 6, 2006 at 5:12 PM If your a Democrat, post two things you think the Republicans are doing right, and two things you think the Democrats are doing wrong, and vice versa. If you don't identify with one party more than another you're a confused worthless piece of shit and have no business in this thread. —zt-in-hell |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mandeemoo22 |
+ |
Wednesday, September 6, 2006 at 5:47 PM Well, I identify with democrats more than republicans, but I am further left than democrats, so I don't really identify with them completely. What should I do then, ZT? —mandeemoo22 |
|
|
|
|
anobody |
+ |
Wednesday, September 6, 2006 at 6:26 PM Like Mandee, I'm more of an independent - but since I identify much more with the Democrats than the Republicans.... The Republicans have mastered marketing and have developed a mind machine that's so efficient that it would make Orwell's Ministry of Truth blush. They're managed to appropriate the flag and patriotism, and they morphed a veteran into a coward and an absentee guardsman into a hero. I could post an ass-ton of things the Democrats are doing wrong. They aren't acting in a cohesive way or doing enough to distinguish themselves from republicans. They're also alienating their base and spending absurd amounts of time and effort going after a bunch of people who would never vote for them. They also get other people to do their homework for them.
—anobody |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
zt-in-hell |
+ |
Wednesday, September 6, 2006 at 6:37 PM Well, I identify with democrats more than republicans, but I am further left than democrats, so I don't really identify with them completely. What should I do then, ZT? —mandeemoo22 Someday you'll grow out of that. But for now, answer as a democrat since you identify with them more. —zt-in-hell |
|
|
|
|
bguirk |
+ |
Wednesday, September 6, 2006 at 6:52 PM Well, I identify with democrats more than republicans, but I am further left than democrats, so I don't really identify with them completely. Totally in the same boat, but I will say that it bothers me that in a lot of circumstances the left does not focus enough on personal responsibility in the rhetoric. That said, the republicans who do have usally fucked their mistresses while cashing a check from a defense contractor and their wives were dying of cancer. Republicans are using databases in a better way than the dems are, but I'm going to fix that. —bguirk |
|
|
|
|
mandeemoo22 |
+ |
Wednesday, September 6, 2006 at 6:56 PM
Edited Wednesday, September 6, 2006 at 7:00 PM Republicans are very persuasive without using facts. Their use of fear tactics have been extremely effective. Republicans also tend to vote much more often than democrats. Most democrats decide to be more moderate in order to gather votes. They can talk about how they want to do what is right for the public, but they really are just trying to take over some of the republican vote instead of focusing on the interests of those who need the most help. Democrats complain about what the republicans are doing, but they don't actually take any action. They are too afraid that they will lose the backing of their financial supporters if they take a firm stand on something. But, I hate government as a whole anyway. I am against our capitalist hierarchical system of government in general. And anobody, don't say that you have the same political ideology as me because you don't. —mandeemoo22 |
|
|
|
|
zt-in-hell |
+ |
Wednesday, September 6, 2006 at 6:59 PM
Edited Wednesday, September 6, 2006 at 7:02 PM Republicans are good at building infastructure and hording money and power. They have co-opted evangelical Churches and made them in to breeding grouds for their causes. Democrats aren't acting enough like Bill Clinton. Democratic-leaning activists are to close-minded and angry to be effective; they blame others more than solving problems or taking responsibility. —zt-in-hell |
|
|
|
|
anobody |
+ |
Wednesday, September 6, 2006 at 7:49 PM anobody, don't say that you have the same political ideology as me because you don't. Yes Mandee, that's exactly what I was saying. Republicans are good at building infastructure and hording money and power. If those were true (at present), I actually wouldn't mind them so much. As I see them now, they're pissing money away, spending like a college student with a shiny new credit card, and letting our infrastructure disintegrate - they've come a long way since Ike.
—anobody |
|
|
|
|
plurry |
+ |
Wednesday, September 6, 2006 at 8:21 PM
Edited Wednesday, September 6, 2006 at 8:22 PM TPAM must be a worthless piece of shit. —zt-in-hell republitard, demotard. i can't tell them apart unless they are wearing birkenstocks or KKK garb. i still need people to help me build my centralist party. i'll be 35 in less than 4 years and have no police record unlike our current president.
who's in? i'm hoping to convince beat it! to be my running mate. —plurry |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
zt-in-hell |
+ |
Wednesday, September 6, 2006 at 8:26 PM
Edited Wednesday, September 6, 2006 at 8:26 PM If those were true (at present), I actually wouldn't mind them so much. As I see them now, they're pissing money away, spending like a college student with a shiny new credit card, and letting our infrastructure disintegrate - they've come a long way since Ike. —anobody I think of the military industrial complex, large coporations, and mega-churches as all being branches of the Republican Party. But that might only be... 99% correct. —zt-in-hell |
|
|
|
|
foob2011 |
+ |
Wednesday, September 6, 2006 at 8:40 PM Both sides suck ass. That is all. —foob2011 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
anobody |
+ |
Wednesday, September 6, 2006 at 10:00 PM I think of the military industrial complex, large coporations, and mega-churches as all being branches of the Republican Party. But that might only be... 99% correct. Those things (especially the first two) don't care about political parties - they just want their interests protected and throw tons of money at both sides to that end. Anyway... I was thinking more in terms of the government (specifically the current administration) building infrastructure and hoarding money (or, rather, not). —anobody |
|
|
|
|
AceRockollaisAce |
+ |
Wednesday, September 6, 2006 at 10:02 PM Both sides suck ass. That is all. I dont know about the US but here in the UK all of them are bastards who want power for thier own benefit and financial gain not to serve the people. —AceRockollaisAce |
|
|
|
|
plurry |
+ |
Wednesday, September 6, 2006 at 11:18 PM
Edited Wednesday, September 6, 2006 at 11:19 PM i don't like the centrists. they just claim to be the middle of the tards.
my centralists do whatever makes the most sense issue by issue and will ignore the current party scheme much like atheists ignore religion. part of our agenda, ironically, is to end political parties. another agenda would be to eliminate the position of presidency and replace it with a 3 person "uber-executive" group elected by the people. face it, most of the presidents have sucked. i, personally, have no confidence either current party is capable of producing someone worth voting for.
also, the position of the vice presidency will be eliminated.
each election winner gets a small cabinet. he/she will appoint a head of the cabinet and will replace them should they die while in term. we are going to stagger these terms so that we aren't getting 3 new people every 4 years. i'm just making this stuff up as i go along... —plurry |
|
|
|
|
mandeemoo22 |
+ |
Thursday, September 7, 2006 at 6:09 AM We need to get rid of government all together and allow people to be completely free. We need to have free trade and total social equality and the only way we can make that happen is if we get rid of this unfair, authoritarian capitalist system. —mandeemoo22 |
|
|
|
|
zt-in-hell |
+ |
Thursday, September 7, 2006 at 6:30 AM We need to get rid of government all together and allow people to be completely free. We need to have free trade and total social equality and the only way we can make that happen is if we get rid of this unfair, authoritarian capitalist system. —mandeemoo22 God bless you. Those things (especially the first two) don't care about political parties - they just want their interests protected and throw tons of money at both sides to that end. Anyway... I was thinking more in terms of the government (specifically the current administration) building infrastructure and hoarding money (or, rather, not). —anobody Building on Mandee's point -- capitalists are concerned with making money and with reproducing the conditions that allow them to make money. Republicans are usually better investments in their future. —zt-in-hell |
|
|
|
|
drakeguy19 |
+ |
Thursday, September 7, 2006 at 12:26 PM Yeah organized anarchy all the way Mandee. —drakeguy19 |
|
|
|
|
Had To Get It On |
+ |
Thursday, September 7, 2006 at 5:55 PM I guess the politics are robbin' hoods.
Fuck the Government cus you know that I would!
Cus the FBI is up to no good. Engineering opinion and policies,
Herd following like sheep. —Had To Get It On |
|
|
|
|
anobody |
+ |
Thursday, September 7, 2006 at 6:36 PM I think hope that comment was tongue-in-cheek, Mandee. There's nothing better we could do for the future than getting rid of rule of law and incentive to advance. It'll be great - I picture cave man days, all over again. I never wanted an iPod, or a car, or the police, or running water and a sanitation system anyway. —anobody |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mandeemoo22 |
+ |
Thursday, September 7, 2006 at 8:05 PM I think hope that comment was tongue-in-cheek, Mandee. Uh, I was serious. You really need an ipod and a car? Fuck the police, those racist assholes! —mandeemoo22 |
|
|
|
|
zt-in-hell |
+ |
Thursday, September 7, 2006 at 8:23 PM
Edited Thursday, September 7, 2006 at 8:23 PM The problem with the anti-capitalist movement is that they don't come up with better alternatives... usually. Mandee, you should read Parecon by Michael Albert. —zt-in-hell |
|
|
|
|
bguirk |
+ |
Thursday, September 7, 2006 at 9:45 PM You really need an ipod and a car? Yes and sometimes. —bguirk |
|
|
|
|
anobody |
+ |
Thursday, September 7, 2006 at 9:57 PM Uh, I was serious. Oh boy. You really need an ipod and a car? No, I like an iPod and a car. When you get down to it, we don't need sanitary water, or sewers, or agriculture. All of us (well, the small fraction of us who wouldn't die of starvation, considering that without modern agriculture the planet couldn't support more than that) could live without all of the niceties of civilization. I wouldn't want to live under those conditions (and I'd bet if you were honest with yourself, you wouldn't either; then again, maybe someday you'll go into the Peace Corps and find bliss in a third world country - just try not to get a guinea worm while you're at it). Fuck the police, those racist assholes! Some cops are racist assholes. Many are power hungry impotents. Without them, we'd live by rule of brute force. It'd be great. Sure, most people, the vast majority even, are benign. All it takes is a few giant insane fucks who like to beat the shit out of people, and who rape and kill for entertainment to make things very unpleasant for all of us. There are bad things about capitalism and our government, but, bad as they are, they're a lot better than the alternatives (at least any that I'm aware of, participatory economics included, ZT). —anobody |
|
|
|
|
greymatters |
+ |
Thursday, September 7, 2006 at 10:37 PM plurry doesn't like politics, he sucks. The government is raping you, they suck, you suck. —greymatters |
|
|
|
|
plurry |
+ |
Thursday, September 7, 2006 at 11:49 PM everything sucks. —plurry |
|
|
|
|
greymatters |
+ |
Thursday, September 7, 2006 at 11:51 PM plurry thinks everything sucks but he's wrong because no one is sucking him so he sucks. —greymatters |
|
|
|
|
plurry |
+ |
Friday, September 8, 2006 at 12:24 AM i won't suck and everything will stop sucking if i get sucked?
far out! —plurry |
|
|
|
|
zt-in-hell |
+ |
Friday, September 8, 2006 at 4:08 AM There are bad things about capitalism and our government, but, bad as they are, they're a lot better than the alternatives (at least any that I'm aware of, participatory economics included, ZT). —anobody Ohh, I don't know about that. To paraphrase Walden Two, that is an experimental question, and I know you haven't done the science yet to figure it out. —zt-in-hell |
|
|
|
|
mandeemoo22 |
+ |
Friday, September 8, 2006 at 6:17 AM Anobody has the wrong impression of anarchy. People aren't going to run around stabbing eachother. If someone was crazy and wanted to kill another person, they would do it anyway, just as they would today with this current government. However, poor Tyrone wouldn't be accused of shooting three people and then get the death penalty because he didn't have a good enough lawyer to prove his innocence. It's all about social justice and equality. —mandeemoo22 |
|
|
|
|
anobody |
+ |
Friday, September 8, 2006 at 6:45 AM
Edited Friday, September 8, 2006 at 6:51 AM ZT - I will grant you that I can't say with certainty that it won't work unless somebody conducts a large scale experiment *BUT* I'm still about 98% confident that it won't work (at least not beyond a small community of dedicated individuals). Just reading about parecon, it seems obvious that Hahnel looked at the historical failures of Communism (to the extent that it's ever actually been implemented), misunderstood why it didn't work and then tried to patch it by making a few changes. Capitalism and the free market isn't some artificial construct that we've imposed upon ourselves. It's a universal solution the problem of supply and demand. A form of it arises naturally in any system where there are a finite number of producers and consumers of finite capacity. Human civilizations tend toward it whether they're bartering, trading beads, shiny rocks, bits of paper or bits in a computer. Even cells do it (with the common currency of ATP). If you suddenly threw nanoassemblers that could build anything for nothing into the mix, you wouldn't get rid of finite supply. There's a limited amount of space, a limited amount of raw materials, people have a limited amount of time, there's variation in people's abilities, and there's efficiency in specialization. Rotating everyone through various jobs to achieve equitable division of labor is unworkable in the long run. Some people will excel at certain tasks, just about everyone will hate and want to avoid others. Some people hate working and others love it. Magically people will figure out how to accumulate some form of wealth that they can use in exchange for doing certain jobs and getting certain things. It'll start out as a bartering system but will quickly evolve into some form of unofficial common currency (probably a number of them). Time passes and you're back to a capitalistic free market. Then there's the idea that it's decentralized. You couldn't implement parecon on a large scale without a revolution - and revolutions spawn (even need) leaders. Without (or even with) some sort of central control, it'll start falling apart as soon as it's implemented on a large scale. It's a naive and idealistic fantasy that works only on paper or (at best) in small dedicated communities (for a short while). Without having conducted the experiment, I can say that with confidence. I'm not just pulling that out of my ass and waiving my hands - there's the entire history of human economics, computer simulations, and game theory backing up my assertions. *edit* Mandee - the problem isn't that I don't understand Anarchy. I won't go through my reasoning (cause I've gotta go) but that I think it's an unstable system (to the extent that it even is a single cohesive ideal) that will quickly devolve into some other form of rule (with luck, direct democracy, but just as likely, if not more, brute rule or oligarchy). —anobody |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mandeemoo22 |
+ |
Sunday, September 10, 2006 at 9:31 AM Whenever i see this thread, I always sing "I take two steps forward, I take two steps back..." —mandeemoo22 |
|
|
|
|
anobody |
+ |
Sunday, September 10, 2006 at 9:50 AM Thanks Mandee, now I'm thinking about Val Kilmer. —anobody |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
anobody |
+ |
Sunday, September 10, 2006 at 10:10 AM How 'bout I just blame Drew Curtis? —anobody |
|
|
|
|
zt-in-hell |
+ |
Sunday, September 10, 2006 at 11:57 AM It's a naive and idealistic fantasy that works only on paper or (at best) in small dedicated communities (for a short while). Without having conducted the experiment, I can say that with confidence. I'm not just pulling that out of my ass and waiving my hands - there's the entire history of human economics, computer simulations, and game theory backing up my assertions. —anobody Anobody, everything you say is dispositive, void of ideas and lacking creative thinking. If I was to take a sample of the DNA from the mean of America, grow it in to a person and send it to school, it would sound just like you. Do you really think we all need to be reminded of the status quo's opinion? —zt-in-hell |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
anobody |
+ |
Sunday, September 10, 2006 at 7:24 PM Anobody, everything you say is dispositive Hmmmm.... – adjective
involving or affecting disposition or settlement: a dispositive clue in a case of embezzlement.dis·pos·i·tive (ds-pz-tv) - adj.
Relating to or having an effect on disposition or settlement, especially of a legal case or will. Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law Main Entry: dis·pos·i·tive
Pronunciation: dis-'pä-z&-tiv
Function: adjective
1 : directed toward or effecting a disposition (as of a case)
2 : relating to a disposition of property
3 : providing a final resolution (as of an issue) : having control over an outcome (from reference.com)Yeah, that seems like a bad thing. void of ideas and lacking creative thinking. Why? Just because I employ a bit of critical thinking and I disagree with your conclusions? I'm sorry, but rehashing the same old worn out ideas of anarchy and a (slightly patched but still unworkable) version of Communism doesn't seem particularly creative to me. Do you really think we all need to be reminded of the status quo's opinion? No, but I do think you need a touch of reality. It's great that you're idealistic, but I honestly believe you're fighting the wrong battle. I completely agree that there are lots of inequities that result from capitalism and democracy. I just strongly disagree that we need to throw out the baby with the bath-water, in either case. In both areas, you're talking about implementing a major, revolutionary change that will require entire nations to change their world views. Nothing intrinsically wrong with that, but you're throwing things to an unstable region of phase space. Even if you could actually implement the parecon or anarchy, things would quickly evolve either to look like what we have now - in which case, why bother? or they'll evolve toward a totalitarian system (or worse). You can accomplish much of what you want through minor modifications of our existing government and economics. Yes, it'll be slow and difficult, but it's workable, and doesn't carry a substantial risk of royally effing things up and making them much, MUCH worse than they already are. Socialized medicine is slowly creeping in. I can envision that, well within my lifetime (possibly within the next 10-20 years), we'll have a subsidized national insurance system that will guarantee primary care (and beyond, as necessary) to all of our citizens. Welfare needs a lot of work, but it's also fixable. The biggest issue I see with it is finding a way to prevent the development of a permanent underclass that's utterly dependent on the state, while stopping knee-jerk conservatives from killing it, altogether. You don't even need a big idea for that - just a few little / obvious ones. Set up a system that makes it easy to get on welfare when you need it, and just as easy to get off. That means stop punishing people by making them wait all day in a crowded welfare office (if you haven't been in one, I highly recommend it; it's ridiculous and disturbing that people put up with that treatment and I'm convinced it's just a way to further punish the poor). Another key to getting people off is setting up effective education and job-training systems. Also, make a graduated system for getting off welfare. As it stands in most places, it's binary. If you surpass a certain income level, you stop getting your monthly check from the government. That means that if you're getting $500 a month from the government unless you earn more than $1000, if you make $999 on a job, you're getting $1499, but as soon as you start earning $1000, you're only earning $1000 (numbers pulled directly out of the poop-chute, but qualitatively representative of reality). It's a completely retarded system and anyone with half a brain should be able to see that it punishes people for earning more. From there, fill in the cracks with mortar, as necessary. Public assistance for medicine is equally retarded. There are two programs here called 'AHCCCS' and 'CARES'. They'll cover lots of stuff, including primary care, if you make less than a certain amount (I vaguely recall that the cutoff is around $16k/yr). As soon as you make one penny more than that, if you don't have medical insurance through work, you're fucked. Fixing retardation like that doesn't require revolution, just a bit of what seems like it should be blindingly obvious common sense. —anobody |
|
|
|
|
A Guy in a Chair |
+ |
Sunday, September 10, 2006 at 7:53 PM Beginning tanget: Anyone who says "Freedom isn't free" while talking about the Iraq war is a fuck-head. I totally agree it's not free. But we also paid for it about 200 years ago, and paid for it many times over when we had to DEFEND OURSELVES. However, poor Tyrone wouldn't be accused of shooting three people and then get the death penalty because he didn't have a good enough lawyer to prove his innocence Yeah, a mob of racists dressed in white will do all that instead. DNA from the mean of America "Just remember, imagine how dumb that mean is... then realize that half our country is stupider than that..." If you know the American mean IQ is so low, why do you think they can take care of themselves without organization? No taxes, no annoying white rich people in D.C. arguing with no result, sure that's bad times, But no welfare, no disability insurance, no funding for schools,(etc. etc.) and there'd be nothing to keep buisnesses from doing whatever they want. I somewhat agree that people wouldn't run around stabbing everyone, but that doesn't mean people wouldn't fuck everyone else over to get more money (unless of course you don't think we should have money, since it is a facet of the government). The government barely keeps that one in check as it is.
—A Guy in a Chair |
|
|
|
|
zt-in-hell |
+ |
Sunday, September 10, 2006 at 8:13 PM Yeah, that seems like a bad thing... Why? Just because I employ a bit of critical thinking and I disagree with your conclusions? —anobody You employ a lot of common and banal thinking and disagree with my ideas. Some people look at the world and ask "How can I make this better?" You're not one of those people. You've said as much before, you enjoy having political discussions for the sake of having political discussions. It produces a lot of internets diarrhea, but not a lot of ideas, it doesn't grow organizations, and it doesn't change anything. You are the anti-christ of political change. —zt-in-hell |
|
|
|
|
greymatters |
+ |
Sunday, September 10, 2006 at 8:13 PM Don't blame me. Blame your ex-wife. That was uncalled for, but the right thing to do.
Yeah, that seems like a bad thing. ZT is saying you're a living, breathing filibuster. Of course, you think that's a good thing. —greymatters |
|
|
|
|
A Guy in a Chair |
+ |
Sunday, September 10, 2006 at 9:51 PM
Edited Sunday, September 10, 2006 at 9:53 PM Banal. Just think about the for a little while and try not to giggle. —A Guy in a Chair |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
anobody |
+ |
Monday, September 11, 2006 at 5:42 PM You employ a lot of common and banal thinking If 1,000,000 people have started with the same goal and the same constraints, wouldn't you many of them to follow similar logic and reach many of the same conclusions? Wishing that you could just tinker with Communism a bit and make it work doesn't make it so. No matter how original and creative your thinking, you should be able to see that parecon isn't viable on a large scale or in the long run unless you make some fantastically wishful assumptions about human nature. and disagree with my ideas. I actually agree with a lot (though not all) of your goals, in principal. I just think you want to go about achieving them in a way that's not only doomed to failure, but would probably end up making the very things you're trying to fix a lot worse. Then again, I guess I'm just being redundant. ZT is saying you're a living, breathing filibuster. Of course, you think that's a good thing. Really? That seems almost like the exact opposite of dispositive to me. Just think about the for a little while and try not to giggle Took me a minute - then I couldn't help but giggle :D
—anobody |
|
|
|
|
zt-in-hell |
+ |
Monday, September 11, 2006 at 9:24 PM
Edited Monday, September 11, 2006 at 9:24 PM Anobody, if you read this close enough you'll see that you and I are having two completely different conversations. You're talking about Capitalism, I'm talking about why talking about anything political with you sucks. —zt-in-hell |
|
|
|
|
anobody |
+ |
Monday, September 11, 2006 at 9:28 PM OK ZT. Have fun with your loose change.
—anobody |
|
|
|
|
TortillaFactory |
+ |
Monday, September 11, 2006 at 9:35 PM talking about anything political with you sucks. There is an obvious joke to be made here by crossing out two words from this sentence, but I'm not that mean. Yet. —TortillaFactory |
|
|
|
|
anobody |
+ |
Monday, September 11, 2006 at 9:39 PM talking about anything political sucks. Somehow that just doesn't seem particularly funny to me.
—anobody |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
anobody |
+ |
Monday, September 11, 2006 at 9:47 PM talking anything political with you sucks. Doesn't seem to be proper engrish, so if you like laughing at Ozzie, it's kinda funny.... I guess.
—anobody |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
zt-in-hell |
+ |
Monday, September 11, 2006 at 9:51 PM OK ZT. Have fun with your loose change. —anobody I think somebody needs a nap. —zt-in-hell |
|
|
|
|
anobody |
+ |
Monday, September 11, 2006 at 9:51 PM
Edited Monday, September 11, 2006 at 9:53 PM I think somebody needs a nap. Quite possibly. I was up till 4 last night and only slept till 6 this morning. Don't think that influenced my response, though. not true The funniest thing about it is that I actually had a number of conversations with Liz on the hub and I got the impression that (at the time), she didn't mind so much. So, either (a) she was lying then (which seems pretty shitty, but I don't believe), or (b), for whatever reason her opinion has since changed. Must be that I've slowed down my posting since school started. Ovsly.
—anobody |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TortillaFactory |
+ |
Monday, September 11, 2006 at 10:03 PM If Hitler got on the hub, I'd chat with him. True story. That's just the way I roll. Or, to put it in plain English, the fact that I chat with someone doesn't mean we're BFF. —TortillaFactory |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
zt-in-hell |
+ |
Tuesday, September 12, 2006 at 9:05 AM People who bring up Godwin's Law need to take a nap. —zt-in-hell |
|
|
|
|
Beat It! |
+ |
Tuesday, September 12, 2006 at 12:35 PM That's the first I've heard of Godwin's Law. It seems like the kind of thing that would totally amaze, and therefore appeal to, small-minded, lemming types. —Beat It! |
|
|
|
|
lundy |
+ |
Tuesday, September 12, 2006 at 12:52 PM 2 steps forwars and one step back!
We go together 'cause opposites attract! —lundy |
|
|
|
|
catloaf |
+ |
Tuesday, September 12, 2006 at 1:46 PM Godwin's Law reminds me of Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon. —catloaf |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MajandraFan |
+ |
Thursday, January 25, 2007 at 11:35 PM the people that say anarchy means chaos should be believed.
they say that people will go nuts? people will. the ones saying it are the ones that will.
of course, they don't say that they themselves will. others will. others, the ones who don't want a control system.
it's one of the major selling points of governments: we're the lesser of two evils. (anarchy is evil!) it is true, that removing the people ruling and exploiting now will only open up the people beneath them to being rulers.
that whole utopia thing? it happened, and this is where it led.
it only takes one person to ruin utopia. most people don't even have the courage to say that utopia is a good thing. they go for saying that this is as good as it gets. that the good things in this life happen because of greedy parasitic people rather than despite them. rich scientists? no, only lackeys. when was the last time that artists were anything more than patronised by the wealthy? occasionally a genius emerges from the ruling classes but the ruling classes are such a minority that of course this hardly ever happens. genius is only awakened through application. the wealthy have no time to apply anything except their servants' faces to their laps. and also to eat nice food in big houses, and travel earth.
fuck god —MajandraFan |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ZT Spice |
+ |
Tuesday, August 7, 2007 at 10:52 AM Cheney: "Principle is OK up to a certain point, but principle doesn't do any good if you lose." I AGREE WITH DICK —ZT Spice |
|
|
|
|
mandeemoo22 |
+ |
Tuesday, August 7, 2007 at 11:52 AM let's say two things right and two things wrong about ourselves. who's on first? —mandeemoo22 |
|
|
|
|
