it's that time again

your sociopolitical position(s), as briefly as you can.

me: individual libertarian, social conservative, economic communist.

Position?

My political position: logic

My socio-economic position: lucky and privileged to be middle class in a 1st world country but otherwise a black sheep

fascist. kill em all.

Social libertarian, economically moderate.

what does moderate even mean

>>6
It means I'm not beholden to ideology and make my choices based on rationality and pragmatism.  I wouldn't care if we were socialist or anarchist as long as the system works.

>>6
It means you are a hard left communist but decide to make absolutely no claims, stand firm on zero issues, and generally be a flip flopping faggot with no spine.


>>7
implying life and government is a "system"
implying socialism or anarchism has ever worked or will ever work, the entire concept of thought is based on utopian fantasies and reality being entirely different.

>>8
That was a pathetic response, I just hope that post was a bad joke.

>>7
and what does "the system works" mean?

by what do you qualify a "working" system?

>>8
you're an idiot and you sound like a prick

Anyone who even seriously considers any marxist ideology for 0.1 seconds is instantly a grade A retard.

Stalin, Lenin, Guevara, Pot, Il-Sung, Castro, Chavez and Mao just used it to control useful idiots, intelligent anarchist and socialist writers were con artists selling ampty platitudes to idiots.

The civil rights movement, egalitarian democracy, unions and everything good that marxists attribute to their actions were actually the result of staunch traditionalist conservatism, nationalism and classical liberalism. Marxist leftists were actually detrimental to these movements because they were an embaressment, they wanted to abuse these movements so they could gain political power.

These are just the facts, deal with it already.

>>8
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/system

>>10
A working system in this case means a relatively sustainable and just society.

>>1
Pacifist anarchist

>>1- >>14

Does this mean there are only 4 people here?

>>14
So what you're saying is that you don't particpate in politics then, right?

>>16
Pretty much. I try to live an anarchist lifestyle...
But I definitely participate in political discussions!
The whole pacifist thing is more about non-violence than non-participation, really.

>>17
So you are just a worthless coward who plays the "shove my head in the sand and hope nothing bad happens" ?

>>18
hmmm... no.
I've just decided that if you fuckers want so badly to fuck your world up , I should just let you do so. Don't let me get in your way!
Meanwhile me and mine will try to live our lives in integrity and harmony, waiting for the day that you fuck it all up so bad that there is no return. (almost there...)
Not so much "bring it all down man", just "wait for it all to crash".
The rebirth and renewal will be beautiful.
My descendants will be among the survivors, since we are not fucking up our bodies with pharmaceuticals, GMOs, microwaves, and etc.
 We'll just go on riding our bikes growing our food, and living co-operatively while you all try to figure how to live without Facebook and cellphones and minivans.

>>19
what the fuck are you even talking about. You sound 14

>>19
Won't be any rebirth and renewal you fucking retard. Non-whites will hunt whites down and exterminate us as they did/do in every other country where they hold power over whites.

>>19
Natural selection hasn't favored luddites in the past. Why do you think it will favor them now?

Because of resource depletion? That doesn't invalidate the benefits of technology, those who figure out how to do more with less will survive while those who only make do with less (you and your hippy communes) will die along with those who only knew what to do with excess (the corporate drones you've only seen in movies like fight club).

>>21
Solution: intermarry

>>22
Nope. The resources will deplete to the point that if you don't know how to do it for yourself, you'll be fucked (except maybe for the few super-rich)
I'm talking really fucked, man, cause the planet is also going to shit, by the way. A lot of us will probably die too, along with most humans... but I believe there will be survivors. And I plan on me and my kids being among them.
>more with less
Hello: that's what I do every day! I have waaaay more practice than most.

>>23
You're just doing what medieval peasants have been doing for centuries, and that's probably what you'll end up as.

Meanwhile I will be pushing renewable energy sources to their limits, using genetic modification, pharmaceuticals, nanotechnology, chemomechanics, continued development of existing technologies such as microwaves and libertarian principles to create a technologically advanced, sophisticated, flexible, highly developed and highly innovative economy.

>>24

You had it all right till you mentioned libertarianism.  Even the father of that movement won't stand by it anymore.

>renewable energy sources
>genetic modification
>libertarian principles
ಠ_ಠ

One of these things is definitely not like the other. The renewable energy industry needs government help to survive. As for genetic research, it's debatable whether the industry needs it but they sure do get a lot of government handouts.

>>26

Libertarians actually believe that removing government from the economy can only make it better.  Meanwhile in Washington the 'conservatives' refuse to stop subsidizing corn.

I'm an anarchist. Abolish money, abolish the state and move on. Human co-operation is the future. It's unclear what the laws of an anarchist society WILL be, what is clear that we are capable of sorting everything out and letting everyone have their voice heard.

I don't ascribe myself to any labels (Marxist, Leninist, etc) because in the future everyone will have moved on. In a way I'm a post-Marxist anarchist. That is, the society of the future won't give a fuck about these stupid fucking dreamers of what will by then considered a dark age.

>>28

So basically what you're saying is you support tyranny.  It's always great to see that there isn't a shortage of fools even in this modern age.

>>29
no, idiot

>>30
>>30
Well you do, what to you think happens in stateless societies?  People are just nice to each other and no one fights because we'ff all such good people?  The realitu is that a power vacuum would propel forth to power the greatest military force.  Whoever is the strongest would rule.

>>31
Which is why the type of this society is subject to the achievement of certain technological and philosophical achievements. That is, a society that is literate and literary and not swayed by rhetoric or political posturing and gesturing. Most people laugh at the mere sight of boobs, I don't think the type of environment of freedom I'd like to see happening now would be beneficial. That is, anarchy now wouldn't last. But anarchy sometime in the future, may last.

And even if all our efforts thus far have been futile, we can at least go down in our legacy that WE TRIED. And that's all people will remember, if anything at all.

>>24
Okay, you do that.
Like I said, I'll just enjoy my life while you fuck everything up, and then once you're done with that, I'll just survive and carry on.

european medieval peasant
classist much?
Also, what a very small frame of reference.
By the way, Europe is an extremely small part of human history.

oops, sorry, I was  not >>2

From an entirely objective point of view, I'm an anarchist: There is no reason for me to be subject to any other person from time of birth, and to be subject to the laws of any land without agreeing to be subject to them. I never said I wanted a squiggle I can make with an inky stick to mean I agree you can take my things.
From a more practical point of view, I am a socialist. There is absolutely no way I can see anarchy doing utilitarian good, whereas socialism provides a safer environment for development and advancement.
Finally, I am a free market capitalist, as I don't believe humanity are capable of living without being able to gain personal advantages over others. However, I would insist that the government provide every citizen with a basic amount of food, sufficient water, and board in exchange for a certain amount of work(BUT living in state housing is only allowed in exchange for an increased amount of labour). My belief is pretty much that we should move on from pure capitalism and work to increase our level of technology and knowledge as rapidly as we can, that we should spread the human race as far as possible (making the new elements autonomous and widely spread) and that our total goal should be the creation of self replicating artificially intelligent beings, capable of working with us, or after we're gone.

>>35
The Dispossessed.
Shows pretty nicely how anarchy can do utilitarian good, imo.

>>25
>>26
Well, maybe not specifically "libertarian principles" but something like it.

1: Technology is driven mainly by 1000s of little technical developments, the big breakthroughs are important but are often dependent on many other technologies to turn them from theory into practice and then to find economical applications for the breakthrough.
2: Even after inventing something continuous development is needed to maximize it's effectiveness and to get it to work in many different applications and under different economic conditions.
3: A pro-active approach is needed, not a top-down approach, you need industries that are continually looking for ways to improve efficiency and continually looking for possible uses for their products, central planning results in sectors of the economy that could benefit from each other being isolated by bureaucracy.

With this in mind it should be obvious why economic freedom is a major factor in making the most out of technology. Most renewable energy would survive without state subsidies, hydroelectric power for instance is a big one, also many minor applications for windmills and solar power in regions where market and environmental conditions favor them, most farms still use windmills for irrigation purposes.
>>28
>>32
Human co-operation is the future.
So if you snap your fingers and say "we're all anarchists now" it will create a utopia? You have to see the problems with statements such as these, you're leaving quite a lot unanswered, you may need to brush up on your argument.

What would a day in the life of Joe Anarchist 100 years from now be like? Before you answer remember that no one (no one logical anyway) is interested in what anarchism is not, we all know anarchism is "no state", "no capitalism" and "no mean people", the only thing that is relevant is the practical side of things.

>>37
Joe Anarchist woke up one morning and kissed his life partner lightly. He walked out into the kitchen and kindled a little fire in the stove and put on some water to boil.
Little Stevie Anarchist was busy painting on the kid art wall in the living room. "Hi Stevie," said Joe,"what's up, buddy?" "I'm going to the lake today with my friends," Stevie replied.
"That's great son, but don't forget you said you would do a shift in the apple orchard," said Joe A.
"I know, Dad," Stevie said, "I'll bring some apples back before I go swimming."
Jenny Anarchist, Joe's life partner, came in from the yard with some peaches. "Good morning guys!" she said,"is there any cheese left?"
"I think there's a little," Joe A said," I'll have to see if the neighbors are going to make any more."
"Well, if you do, let them know I have their sweater ready," Jenny said. "I'm off for my shift at the birthing center: see you later, guys!"
Joe A didn't feel like doing any shifts at any of the co-ops today, so he set off to the lake after walking Stevie to the apple orchard.
He stopped on the way by the bakery for a cinnamon roll.
Since everyone in the community volunteered at various jobs, everything was free, so he didn't need to worry about paying for his roll, or his rent, or anything, really. If he needed shoes, Fred made him some. If he was sick, one of the doctors came by. And if anyone needed music, well, his guitar was the one they wanted to hear: to cheer them up, to provide entertainment for the kids...
"Gee," Joe thought to himself, "I'm so glad I don't live in the old days, when it was every man for himself. It's nice to have the support of friends and neighbors!"
Joe left the town, smiling at the skateboarding kids in the old factory, and headed to the lake, where he would soon meet Stevie, who only had a couple hours in his shift since he was only 8. Stevie would be proud of the work he had done and ready to play with his buddies and his dad.
Joe was glad that Stevie could do his own thing most of the time, freeing him from the position of being prison guard to his son and allowing him to enjoy fathering.
At the lake, Joe saw Dan, one of the folks in town who didn't so much appreciate guitar playing at 2 am. They had worked out a sort of compromise; playing all night was only Fridays or Saturdays; but Joe and Dan still didn't get along very well. They had had a fistfight this last week, and now they were both pretty wary around each other.
"Hey Dan," Joe said as he entered the water.
Dan grunted in reply.
Joe was used to working out problems with neighbors, though, since he had never looked to an authority to solve his problems for him. From the time he was a little kid, he had been encouraged to work things out and come to a compromise. He felt mostly embarrassed about the fight with Dan. Physical violence was definitely not accepted in their town, and many neighbors had spoken to both him and Dan about their self control.
Joe decided to give it another go with Dan.
"Hey Dan," he said," I hear our kids are coming down to swim soon. How about we make them a raft?"
"Sure," Dan said.
Well, they weren't best friends, but it was something. Joe felt relieved. He had heard about feuds between people that used to take place in the bad old days, when folks didn't hold co-operation as a value, and he had worried that one might be developing here. But reminding Dan that they were mostly on the same side anyway seemed to help restore balance.
And there we leave Joe Anarchist, making a raft for his kid in the lake with his not-so friendly, and yet co-operative neighbor.

tl;dr:
Joe the Anarchist has a lovely day, free of money and authority.

>>37
The life of 'Joe Anarchist' would be any life that he would want to live. He would be an autonomous individual who is able to decide how he would want to live and set out his goals and achieve them. No bosses, resumes, bank cards, credit cards, regulations, etc .. etc required. The point is freedom.

There are no "expectations" of an anarchist society, it exists as long as everyone in it wants it to exist. And it exists how a co-operatively managed democracy wants it to exist.  Everyone is equal and has equal say. Everyone is free to come and leave.

All this seems rudimentary and standard, until you realize that the capitalist oligarchy we live in provides none of this; all you get is command and brutality, sneaking by with your little pleasures and projects with what little time, privacy and money you may have. Unless of course you're one of the few to be successful in the big casino that is capitalism.

Well, I don't think it's that simple.  Humans and in fact most mammals are basicly lazy and therefore unless there are some way to make people put something into the society, everyone will try to take without giving in return.  So while Joe might get his roll, the society wouldn't last very long -- everybody would pick the apples out of the orchard, but not nearly so many would be willing to tend it.  People would eat the roll, but not raise the wheat, mill the grain or bake the rolls.  eventually either you develop a market or a government or both.  Otherwise it will fall apart due to the nature of people wanting to take rather than give.

>>40
This is where my main disagreement with you lies.
I believe this assumption comes from a belief in "original sin", which I do not believe in. I believe that presupposing and expecting people to behave in a selfish manner actually encourages that behavior, while modeling and expecting  co-operative, generous behavior encourages and generates that.
I have a lot of experience working with children and raising my own, and I have seen this very clearly.

>while modeling and expecting  co-operative, generous behavior

Good luck implementing that! You'd be competing with a century of hearing the capitalist dogma that selfishness is good.

Anarchists love to portray anarchy as some sort of voluntary utopia.  But they always seem to leave out how these societies are policed, the most common response is to claim that we dont need police.  But I can think of no weaker argument then one that argues against the evidence of the entire history of our species.  Further I would like to hear how one protects from foreign invaders who would seek to extinguish your people or to take all your natural resources.

>>43
People would defend their own communities with their own arms and willpower. It would be a co-operative militia.

>>42
Living and raising a kid in Berkeley, CA makes it a lot easier, believe me!

>>44
You think an untrained militia would be all it took to police the nation and keep out foreign invaders? LOL

>>46
If we raised the total population of America into a militia, even if just the males, we could probably defend it.

Considering there's only about 1-2 million Americans in the world as is.

And for policing, most crimes are drug/money related so that wouldn't be a problem. Being that those sorts of crimes only happened in capitalism.

>>31
implying that isn't exactly how it is with nations anyway. Forceful revolution has become physically impossible in the west.

>>47
1-2 million Americans?
huh?

>>48
We have a legal system. Within our country the law is not might equals right. Only on the geopolitical scale does military might become a factor and economic warfare is more prevalent then violent war.

>>40
so basically you think everyone is a cunt just because you are?

>>46
you're a fascist nationalist shithead. That is all.

>>51
Lawl, nice response. Shows how little substance there is to your argument. What the poster was trying to express is the dividing of labor and how without a system you get an asymmetric system which won't function properly

>>52
Oh boy, keep the ad hominems coming.  I'm neither fascist nor nationalist.  The reality is that there are those kind of people out there and as James madison said "ambition must be made to counteract ambition" we have  our freedoms because our fathers fought for it, they had to fight for it because the forces of tyranny have no qualms about killing to maintain control either.

>>54
>I'm neither fascist nor nationalist.
Then you must be a retard.

>>23
>Solution: intermarry
So whites are the only race on this planet to develop any civilization, yet somehow destroying our genes with race mixing is a "solution" ??

Also
>thinking resource depletion exists.

>>56
The solution to your racial fears is to intermarry.
Infiltrate the non-whites and mess up their non-whiteness. The Romans totally had a grasp on this concept. It is possible to white-out genetics.

>>57
Filthy fucking jew spotted.

>>58
Haha , wow. You are really bad at that.
Turns out that I'm French, English, German, and Dutch, not that I give a fuck. And my partner is Polish, Irish, and Native American, so.

>>49
I meant in the armed forces.

>>39
Free and happy until a man breaks into his house to steal his stuff, and with no police force to track the thief down a mob is formed to find the culprit. Sadly with no court system to decide if one was guilty or not an innocent man was found guilty on the presumption he had fenced the goods and with no prison to send him to they lynched him because it was the only level of justice available.
>>38
Joe Anarchists world sounds like an Agrarian shit hole. Also what happens when people don't want to volunteer for work? What happens when someone eats all the apples because there is no cost to them and as such demand for all goods exceeds supply? Your fairy tale story is exactly that. Fiction.

>>61
Why would they steal his stuff when he could just get the same shit for free anyways in an anarchist society, given that money no longer exists?

The motivation for crime goes away when you do away with money, authority and the government.

People work because it gets fucking boring doing nothing all the time. After 2 years of playing call of duty and sitting around the home doing fuck all, people get tired and start working. Why do you think retired people still work when they could live comfortably doing nothing the rest of their lives? Because it gets BORING.

Anarchy is exactly what libertarians dream of - getting the sweat of your brow, instead of letting your exploiting employer have it.

Anyways, capitalism is such a self-centered system, it would be easy to knock it off it's balance and snowball and revolution right in those fatcat's faces.

>>62
>Why would they steal his stuff when he could just get the same shit for free anyways in an anarchist society, given that money no longer exists?
So everyone drives a Ferrari in this society?
>The motivation for crime goes away when you do away with money, authority and the government.
"some people just want to watch the world burn" What about the criminally insane? etc etc
>People work because it gets fucking boring doing nothing all the time. After 2 years of playing call of duty and sitting around the home doing fuck all, people get tired and start working. Why do you think retired people still work when they could live comfortably doing nothing the rest of their lives? Because it gets BORING.
I don't even know where to begin to address this point but I'll give it a shot. People work because it allows them a better standard of living, the majority of people who go to university do so because they know they will have better job prospects on the other side where they can attain more wealth. It is this acquisition of value that drives us onwards to succeed in life dependant upon what that value is. I have met more than enough people in my country living in the welfare trap where they are more than content to sit on their backside all day playing COD and smoking pot.
>Anarchy is exactly what libertarians dream of - getting the sweat of your brow, instead of letting your exploiting employer have it.
Anarchy is absolutley no means to earn the sweat of your brow when you are given exactly the same rewards as someone who works either a far less strenuous job or none at all gets exactly the same as you.
>Anyways, capitalism is such a self-centered system, it would be easy to knock it off it's balance and snowball and revolution right in those fatcat's faces.
Be my guest, most people realize that free market capitalism is by far the most fair and rewarding method of distribution of wealth this planet has known. in 300 years it dragged the world from medieval feudalism to the beginnings of the 20th century.

Also what the dicks is with this "no money"? You do understand why we have currency right?

>>62
YEAH!
*astral high five*

>>63
"Imagine there's no money/ I wonder if you can / no need for greed or hunger / a brotherhood of man"

>>65
You do realize money is a necessary part of modern society right? and with out it people would be bartering for goods? Because demand for resources outstrips supply and there has to be an equilibrium? You do understand this extraordinarily basic concept of economics?

>>66
Wtf do you think paying for something with money is besides bartering using a substitute?

No point responding to delusional commies who think that in some magical utopia work and value and scarcity will disappear.

>>66
This is why communism only works in a society of abundance.

>>6
I do not believe that money is necessary, no. Trade is equally viable. In fact, except for utilities, most of my expenses are paid for with trade.
 This is much more viable and flexible and personal, and does not rely on a piece of paper backed by nothing but the word of a fully corrupt system.

>>68
Communism wouldn't work in a society of abundance, it would collapse because it is inherently contradictory and flawed.

The >>6 should be >>66

I believe in individual liberties above all else. Damn the cost in blood, and sure as hell damn the economic cost. Give me liberty or give me death, and give death to any CEOs who try to curtail my freedoms for their bottom line.

post communist free market

>>72

give my death to any CEO for their bottom line

fify

>>69
So what happens when you want something that someone else has but they don't want anything of yours? You have to go hunting around to trade with someone who wants something of yours and has something they want to trade with. What happens when they realize they are able to trade you something at a much higher price than what you would of been able to simply pay the guy you originally wanted to trade with? Money eliminates middle men, increases trade, and encourages higher levels of economic growth through the reduction of trade barriers. Deal with it.

Um, piece of shit? >:

>>72
BROFIST

but we are a dying breed in the brave new world.

>>77

APPROVED.

Terr'istBump.jpg

>>78
i like you.

>>79
i dont

>>80

I already told you on /b/, you don't have to like me.

Sure is samefag in here

>>82

Actually it's not. Use your head.

>>82
I'm not so sure about being the same but we certainly are fags. Latino, ebony, asian, arabica, all different shapes and sizes of exotic muscular men are welcome here.

>>> I'm an anarchist: There is no reason for me to be subject to any other person from time of birth
wrong. If nothing else, you should be subject to the obvious fact that we have to live on this rock together. That implies a NECESSITY of working out harmonious life together, in one way or another.

that implies law
law implies authority, conviction, punishment, coercion, etc

>>85
What if a harmonious way of life requires that you impose your will on others?

>>86
It doesn't. Dumb argument.

>>87
Actually you would have to concede that you must defend yourself from usurpers.  So you would have to fight back or perish.

>>88

Those who initiate violence are responsible for the consequences of it. When their women are raped or killed, when their men have been opened from belly to throat or hung from overpasses, I will go home and sleep soundly with a clean conscience because they started it.

>>89
That's the spirit. Now consider the advantage of pre-emptive strikes. If there is a power vacuum that will inevitably lead to a scramble to fill it then victory is more likely if you are ahead of the curve, if you are truly good then it is justified for you to obtain more power.

>>90
what makes you think that the good deserve to conquer power?

fuck off

>>91
Ex.  There is a neighboring tribe who have made it known they mean to conquer everyone else. Do you wait for the attack or do you take precautions?

>>89
No, because each individual is responsible for their actions. While it may be justifiable to kill someone who tries to kill you, it is not justifiable to kill their wife and children.
>>90
>>92
Go away, Glenn Beck.

>>93

Then I will live with being unjustified. And it will be easy.

If one group initiates violence, they are responsible for whatever means is required to defend myself. If that means picking them off while they sleep, when they go to the bathroom, when they forage one by one, woman by child by man, that is none of my concern. Prosecute the war until they are all dead or dispersed to ground like rabbits.

>>92
>>90

Or you could just use ultimatums and alliances. If you have the ability to launch and win a 'pre-emptive' war, they probably weren't a threat to you in the first place. Which is why every pre-emptive war in history has been a badly disguised war of aggressive conquest and enslavement. A pre-emptive war cannot be justified no matter how you stretch your hypothetical. It will always be an unprovoked war of aggression.

>>95
exactly.

>>94
Who are you?
Evil Incarnate?

>>97
He is Anonymous, and Anonymous does not forgive!

>>97

Defending myself is not evil. You need to re-evaluate your kool-aid morals. There is no honor in war. It's crass violence. Everyone has a biological imperative to survive and defend themselves against aggressors.

Nothing is sacred in war. Don't start it if you aren't prepared to face the consequences of war.

>>99
What is it good for, anyway? Absolutely NOTHING!

>>100

Conflict helps weed out the weak and spread winning genes to losing clans via rape. Also, violence solves quite a lot. I'm in favor of a violent class war against the rich, and hanging them and their pawns from overpasses as a warning to others.

>>101
Oh, go shoot your friend accidentally in the face.

Seriously, though, you really should consider living as a hermit and never spreading your poisonous ideas to impressionable children.

>>99
You need to re-evaluate your PCP morals.

>>102

Are you calling me Dick Cheney? Rude. I don't think he advocates a class war against the rich.

So let me get this straight. I'm an evil sociopath, twisted with depravity, for advocating total war and guerrilla war to unconditional victory in defense of myself and my family but the guy who is trolling with pre-emptive wars of conquest and enslavement is just Glenn Beck?

See, now that's more than just a casual fail. That is indicative of some serious brain damage on your part. You care more about HOW people speak rather than WHAT they say. Let me guess: raging Politically Correct "liberal?"

Though probably, you're not really liberal. You're a middle of the road statist patriot whose ears bleed whenever a militant or anarchist suggests doing something that requires more sacrifice than pressing 'like' on facebook or marching around holding a sign for more than a couple of hours and chanting tired slogans. Just a guess.

>>103

middle of the road statist patriot unwilling to sacrifice

Um. Wrong.
I'd bet money that I sacrifice a hell of a lot more than you do every day. I sacrifice to buy (or grow, or trade for) only locally grown organic food; to buy (or trade for) only locally made products, or go without, or make my own; to spend time with my son and not work all day every day (less money is the sacrifice here); to send him to an anarchist school; to invest time and energy in community, to live without a car... just a few things off the top of my head.

You: let's see, all I know about you is that you advocate hunting down and killing innocent women and children because someone in their group attacked you. Sounds Cheney-ish to me. Only difference is that you specifically advocate killing the rich, whereas he advocates killing people who are inconvenient to him. But at the end of the day, dear, children are children. people are people. You are advocating violence. And not just self-defense.

>>104

Okay, Blossom. Hold hands and call up to the sun and the moon and maybe if you ask nicely the owner class will just go away and leave you to your self-determination in peace. Non-violence is fine, IF you sacrifice, and sacrifice means being willing to go to jail, to be attacked and murdered by state thugs. But you know what? Violence is fine too. You say that I'm advocating violence as if it's damning. It isn't. Violence gets things done. There is nothing noble or intellectual about it; it's crass force and it has its place. Children are children and people are people? What does that even mean? I hope you're not posting while high (and then saying I'm on PCP simultaneously).

I'll say it again, if a group isn't prepared to take the consequences of war, they shouldn't start one. Let the broken bodies of their wives and children make them think twice before casually committing murder and aggression in the future. The universe is not a soft, kind, and caring place. A hundred trillion worlds circling ten trillion stars, and the meek won't inherit a single one. You non-violent pandering faggots need us militants a hell of a lot more than we need you. Your supposed lifestylism is great, but it won't change anything; it won't even help provide the backbone of a new and sustainable economy or even sustain you until you're 100% self-sufficient. And that's not a condemnation, that shit is hard. But it is the truth.

>>105
Not high.

How can you not even understand that you are mirroring the beliefs of the oppressors???
Your violent militantism doesn't accomplish much change in the long run. Just more death and misery. Then _ what? Once you are in charge, you rule with a violent iron fist? No thanks.

Children are children : what does that mean?
It means that rich or poor, a child is just a child and killing them is always wrong and abhorrent. At least kidnap them and raise them with better values! Geez.

war; shouldn't start one, etc
I'm guessing that somehow you don't know that the people who start the wars are never the ones who fight them, or die in them.

non-militants need you
No. We don't. You make us look bad, for one thing. Also, you add more violence, death and destruction to the world, which we do not need.
Focus less on killing and more on destroying infrastructure and power plants and oil refineries, and I would be more supportive.

>>106

The O^ppressors!

Mirroring the beliefs of the oppressors? Violence was not invented by the owner class, it was invented by the universe; by nature. Violence is a total solution, complete in its finality. Only the reasons for violence are the 'beliefs of the oppressors,' and they are not at all mirrored in militancy against them. Violence for liberty, for self-determination, for blind and true justice, and all the other peacocked justifications for revolution - whatever you think of them, there is no way these things can be said to be what the oppressors and exploiters of this world initiate violence for.

| Slippery Slope! If you have a successful revolution you'll be a violent despot!

Cool story, bro. I'm sure your non-violent methods will do much better at stepping up just as their capitalist pyramid scheme collapses to supply a new economy in perfect working order to provide for 7 billion people. Certainly no despots will rise up in that situation to rule with violent fists. I like how this argument isn't actually cemented in any kind of logic at all.

In fact, it will be the pacifists who condemn the militant people of their own ideology as an 'embarrassment' while the fascists and autocrats rise up. You're the embarrassment and a demerit to whatever ideologies you people belong to. Unfortunately it's almost always the left in latter times and as a result we've been castrated and kept disorganized and impotent to resist as our rights are sacked and our victories eroded. Cool to see all those working poor without healthcare and working 12 hour days at two jobs. You're doing real bang up work.

Those who start wars don't suffer in them.

This is true in these days, but I've been operating on the scenario of a neighboring clan or tribe threatening violence as per the offered hypothetical. In which case those who started the wars would be suffering in them.

And people are responsible for the leaders they have. Even in an industrial society, the people mandate the kind of leaders they want. 1932 Germany mandated the rise of the Nazis and spurred them ever onwards as long as things were going well. Only when things started to go poorly did they start griping. You know how people in Africa and elsewhere are being tricked into killing their babbies by Nestle? Well they don't organize, so they deserve it, don't they? It's not like they don't have breast milk. They choose to believe Nestle's campaign, and their babbies die. You'd think they'd fucking learn, but they don't. I have a hard time having sympathy for people that stupid. It goes just as much for those in the developed world who choose sociopathic politicians. The people are to blame for their own stupidity and torpid pacifism to the kind of evil they see around them. You call me evil, but I call you ten times more evil for standing by condemning those who would oppose evil with violence rather than joining in.

>>104
I fucking hate the whole liberal anti-violence gig - and I'm an anarchist. You have to meet violence with violence. You can't spend the rest of history muddling around with lawyers and the legal system currying for your rights. You need to fight, someday or another - and having guns closer just means that you'll be prepared the day when you have to fight. Maybe not a gun, maybe just a baseball bat; it doesn't matter.

Preparing oneself for violence is all a part of being a human. Stop resisting your humanity.

>>108
>>107
Again: violence against ACTUAL oppressors, such as police, I have no problem with. Fighting to defend yourself from attack?( or oppression) Go for it!
Hunting down women and children related to oppressors? Not cool.

And I could say the same to you, re: great job you're doing so far.

>>107
your lack of sympathy for Nestle's victims is enough for me. I have NO respect for you, sir.
Try walking outside your front door and getting to know the oppressed a bit before you start fighting on their behalf.

>>109

So you had respect for me when I was Dick Cheney, but now that I criticized the stupidity of Humans who don't organize, that was the last straw? Lol, okay.

But what if I told you I don't buy nestle products? Meanwhile, those who do would never say anything so heartless and wicked buy their crunch bars and drumsticks and chocolate milk mix. Are those people more deserving of respect? They don't say such MEAN things, after all!

>>93
HURR GLENN BECK FOX NEWS SO EDGY HIPSTER AM I
Whatever dude.
>>95
If you issue an ultimatum you'll lose the element of suprise, then you'll lose the war, which as I mentioned before is inevitable due to the power vacuum.

You have 2 options before you.

1: Do nothing and your opponent takes the opportunity instead of you.
2: Issue an ultimatum and lose the element of suprise, your opponent knows as well as you that the ultimatum is just a meaningless political tool and invades before you gaining the advantage.
3: You decide to "back the freedom fighters on the borders" and quickly occupy the region, your opponent realizes your operation was pre-planned months in advance and has missed an opportunity so there is no point antagonizing you over something they will inevitably lose. War is averted, you are free to build mines, ports, roads, rail, plantations and light industries and turn the country into an egalitarian 1st world democracy.

>>95
Did I say 2? I meant 3.

>>111

The element of surprise doesn't apply to strategy. It applies to individual battles. Ultimatums are a very useful diplomatic tool. It finds out just how far your enemies want to take things. They violate the ultimatum, and you pack up your shit, go into war mode, burn their villages and salt their fields. Using an ultimatum at the right time is important, of course, but saying it guarantees defeat is absurd. A pre-emptive strike has zero value whatsoever. Just look at the Japanese and Pearl Harbor. Your arguments are weak and flaccid, like your cock when looking at attractive females, you homosexual.

>>110
So you don't by Nestle products. So join the club.
Look, I obviously have no idea who you are as a person, but the things you have been writing about, such as hunting down and killing children, and glorifying violence, disturb me.
I think it is very easy to get caught up in an ideal and lose sight of the actual flesh and blood people right next to you. You say you would hunt down a child. Well, I hope that when you would actually see that theoretical child before you, when it would look into your eyes, that your human soul would not be able to carry out your intellectual edict.
Try a little sympathy and empathy.Try, maybe, a little less arrogance, and a little more awareness that we are all just folks here on this planet trying to figure it all out.

Start the day off with a smile.

100% HARD BASS
100% ADIDAS
1488% ANTI GYPSY

>>115

Sorry, I read that in Heath Ledger's joker voice and it completely changed the intended meaning.

>>113
I could say "an ultimatum has 0 value whatsoever, just look at Neville Chamberlain", but that would be a weak and flaccid argument, sometimes pre-emptive strikes are a good option, sometimes ultimatums are, sometimes both and neither are. In the situation I described a pre-emptive strike is optimal, in the situation you describe where you are in a position to inflict that sort of damage an ultimatum is also a good idea.

Let's look at my situation again, except ignoring the means with which to achieve them and focussing on the ends, which are the only thing that matters anyway.

1: Your opponent takes the opportunity instead of you.
2: Your opponent invades before you gaining the advantage.
3: War is averted, you are free to build mines, ports, roads, rail, plantations and light industries and turn the country into an egalitarian 1st world democracy.

Now let's change the situation to one where an ultimatum is useful, let's say an ultimatum for North Vietnam in 1957.

1: Do nothing, North Vietnam escalates hostilities leading to a grinding guerilla war.
2: Launch a pre-emptive strike, South Vietnam suffers heavily from corruption and inefficiency, the campaign is a disaster and the military suffers from mass desertions, North Vietnam takes advantage of the situation and wins a quick victory.
3: Issue an ultimatum, declare a defensive alliance with South Vietnam and Laos and that indiscriminate carpet bombing followed by a full scale invasion would commence if North Vietnam declares war on South Vietnam or Laos, flood the countries with UN inspectors and other diplomatic trifles to make it impossible for their activities to go unnoticed by the world. North Vietnam keeps funding the guerilla campaign but with the Ho Chi Minh trail gone and hope of total victory fading this gradually becomes a token measure. Laos and South Vietnam become asian tigers like South Korea, Taiwan and Japan.

And now without the means.

1: North Vietnam invades.
2: North Vietnam invades, your strategic blunder leads to their quick victory.
3: War is averted, you are free to build mines, ports, roads, rail, plantations and light industries and turns Vietnam and Laos into 1st world egalitarian democracies.

like your cock when looking at attractive females, you homosexual
Real mature, I'm not a homosexual but you are a homophobe, the last thing I'd expect from a lefty liberal.

>>118

You're on 4chan, ad homs and name calling are mandatory, "faggot".

Your post was horribly flawed and at times incoherent. The first thing I'd expect from a righty cuntservative.

LOJIKS:

IF: You issue an ultimatum;
THEN: Your opponent disregards it SO war begins AND you gain allies or political capital.
ELSE: War is averted.

IF: You do nothing;
THEN: Your opponent continues its actions AND war is inevitable since it will continue to push the envelope until it meets resistance.

IF: You launch a pre-emptive strike;
THEN: War is certain AND you lose allies and political capital.

Ignoring the means, and taking the event of war as desireable to avoid, the ONLY logical choice is the use of diplomacy such as alliances and ultimatums to avoid armed conflict as any other path will unavoidably lead to war.

Now, your argument is that a pre-emptive strike will convey some magical strategic advantage. This is not true. An ultimatum may do nothing, but diplomacy is the ONLY option that will lead to an avoidance of war. Nothing prevents you from being prepared for war while simultaneously giving the ultimatum.

I have already contested your claim, stating correctly that the element of surprise applies only to battle. Catching them with their pants down. While they sleep, while they forage, overwhelming inferior and isolated targets with shock and awe. It has nothing to do with grand strategy. An invasion takes days or weeks: far longer than the element of surprise lasts, which can be scant seconds. You ignored this point in the midst of your laughably contrived logic, so I take that as you conceding defeat on the matter. I accept your apology. Please seek out a church-led ex-gay program to cure yourself of your faggotry.

>>119
This isn't /b/ and using ad hominems in place of an actual argument is not going to win the debate.

>>119
It's obvious you didn't understand my argument, you only think it is incoherent because you cannot comprehend anything more sophisticated than whatever day to day activities you undertake. You think in terms of absolutes, pre-emptive strikes are 0% useful, there are 0 situations in which one would be useful, they offer 0 advantage, they always result in allies leaving, war is always wrong. You confuse the models in which you use to simplify reality so that it can be understood with reality itself, you fail to realize the distinction between tactics and strategy is arbitrary, the "element of surprise" can occur on a large scale, in the situation I described there was a window of opportunity in which competitors in filling the power vacuum were unaware of the situation, in this situation the timescale of preparation and execution and it's benefits would assure victory. The attack on pearl harbor neglected to take into account the time it would take for Japan to secure every strategic point from New Zealand to India and the ease in which the US could replace it's lost navy even if they took out the carriers.

Lastly you obviously have some emotional issues, you seem to think that I am a conservative, I don't really care about gay marriage and abortion. I am just a realpolitik pragmatist with infallible logic stating the most feasible routes of achieving various goals, that's all. I could probably conjur up a plan to achieve some anarchist utopia if you wanted.

>>120
>>121

Haters who can't compete with my logical arguments so they try to ignore it and hope no one will notice.

Anti Spam Bump.

>>122
How is a 2 paragraph reply brimming with facts and logical assertions ignorance?

>>124
well for a start you said:
Lastly you obviously have some emotional issues

irrelevant, ad hominem, you're an idiot.

>>125
ad hominem
you're an idiot
Well, you see, you do have emotional issues because you keep swearing and exhibiting behavior of someone experiencing frustration and I'm not calling you names like "idiot", I'm just saying what has to be said.

I am human, I will always make mistakes and be inaccurate, at the same time though I am a human that is good at spotting good ideas, like pragmatism and realism. In the end what is will be all that matters, if the means you used to achieve it tar your reputation then that's just another factor to take into account, beyond that it's meaningless. If pre-emptives strikes are the best option then they are justified by that alone.

>>126
either you mean "idiot" is a swear word, or you are confusing my agreement with one or two other posters to mean that we're all the same person. I haven't sworn in this discussion.

*bump*

I'm a technocrate... I believe that people should have decision power according to skills and insight... too many people have opinions that are not based on knowledge. Personally I know a lot about IT and open source, but not much about agriculture or fishing... but in our democracy, Im given equal rights in all areas... think about it...

Essentially, I'm a hardcore Catholic who doesn't give a fuck what happens in your bedroom. inb4 misconceptions

Constitutional Robocracy.

>>130
Catholic is a sociopolitical position?

Communist Non-Hereditary Monarchy

>>133
How the hell would that work?

>>134
King or Queen would designate a line of succession based on who they trust most to lead. this would  be made public long in advance so no shenanigans when the king dies.

the Monarch would be tasked with ensuring the strength and prosperity of the people, and would be able to make the hard decisions when needed, that elected officials and party toadies in democratic and party rule countries are too spineless to make.

>>135
So, basically it's constitutional monarchism (albeit with some modifications) repeated as a farce. Got cha.

>>129 continued:

A) Selective voting rights. Allow people only to vote for what they know about. Noone is an expert in everything.

B) Use the academic tradition and proven methods to determine each persons skills. Society already believes in this system, and awards people with better exams and grades. The system is here already, just expand it to keep the ignorants away from power. The better you are,the more you know,the more you get to say. Get an A in a given subject and earn the right to vote in areas regarding this...

>>129
>>137

Or even better.. to earn the right to vote, at least prove that you know what you're voting about by passing a simple exam in the subject.. this could simply be a multible choice exam on your voting card..

In my country you need a license to drive a car, to buy a gun, to go fishing, or even to own a tv...but everybody can ruin our lives by voting for idiots that doesnt have a clue, and just talks bullshit and promises the impossible.... think about it...

I just want to watch the world burn. Then I want to lynch some furries and gays.

>>138
i've thought about this a lot in the past, and i agree with it. Democracy is a bad thing if the majority is evil or stupid.

>>140
Democracy doesn't last long when the majority are evil/stupid.

You can't live like a free man while living like a tyrant. This is why liberty is equally as important as democracy.

>>141
oh how naive you are

>>141
That's not true.

>>143
>>144
So governments become less repressive the more stupid and evil the population is?

>>145
Still not getting it. Read what a constitution is suppose to be.

>>140
I dont really believe in the existance of evil.. but stupidity is most certainly real...and causing more pain and 'evil' than Evil itself...

>>146
Ok I'm a huge retard and you're better than me. Now explain why I'm so wrong.

>>147
Sounds very Buddhist.

>>149
Thanks.. I will regard it as a compliment. I dont follow the Buddishistic dogmas, and I do not believe in reincarnation or vegetarism, but buddists have always seemed and behaved nice and intelligent to me... -maybe because there's not a lot of them around here....

>>147
you don't believe in the existence of evil? You're a fucking idiot.

>>151
Define evil, I find most people define it in very subjective terms.  Evil is whatever it is you would prefer not to happen.

>>152
Evil is anything that threatens your survival.

>>153
Oh no... that's just competition...

>>151
I have never felt or experienced or even witnessed 'Evil'... Ive seen (and felt) anger, revenge, jalousy, pain and experienced a lot of stupidity and ignorance.. Ive seen misguided and confused -and even insane people... but 'evil'.. no... never seen it.. dont believe in it..

Evil is whatever causes suffering to conscious beings.

>>151
Kid, I've flown from one side of this galaxy to the other. I've seen a lot of strange stuff, but I've never seen anything to make me believe there's one all-powerful Force responsible for all the suffering in the world.

>>157
It's not a "force", it's just a concept. Like mathematics. Are you going to tell me mathematics doesn't exist like some retarded luddite? Then don't say evil doesn't exist because that makes no sense.

KEYNESIAN ECONOMICS MOTHERFUCKER DO YOU SPEAK IT? Populism works best for legislation. Religion is to blame for 90% of the world's problems.

Monetarism is a flawed policy.

>>151
Evil is real. Islam, pedos, liberalism...all too real.

I used to call myself a liberal until I realized how infected it's become with Marxism, down to the very core, and how it's also monstrously utopianistic. My motto is "Utopianism = Authoritarianism" - anyone espousing some kind of perfect harmonious society is a looney and a would-be tyrant, if not already. Always. You can't have perfection without oppression.

I don't know what I'd call myself now. Too soon to tell. I'll wait awhile until I'm sure.

>>161
Just wait till you turn 14!
Then your views will really start changing!

I was a liberal. Then I had to pay my way through collage, wipe my own ass and be responsible for myself. As I got older, I noticed how dishonest and hateful my liberal brothers were. A few more years came and they became utterly alien freaks to me. 

Now, they seem like selfish pathetic hypocrites who can't stand the thought that can't force everyone to do what they want.

>>163
Do the words argumentum ad hominem mean anything to you?

>>163

You're halfway right...

>>164
Not at all bro. It's just my opinions and how they changed over time. I used to hate Christians and Republicans.

Now I tolerate them without the need to demonize them. The only religions that bothers me are the ones that demand slavery to a false god that uses crashing planes as his prophets. Tea Party people seem have the right idea. Life goes on. 20 years from now I might believe in something completely different. 

Opinions are like assholes. Everyone has one, but they all smell like shit. Don't be a slave to your own opinions and ideology. People try to rationalize their irrational natures. It's a funny fact of life.

>>167
what is it with this need to pretend to be /have been a liberal?

>>166
Well, enjoy listening to Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly, and being led by Michelle Bachmann. I just pray to Allah that you're not majority, lest we have another Herbert Hoover, George W. Bush, or James Buchanan. I just don't understand why someone that hates opinions so much is on a board about politics.

>>167
I was just thinking the same damn thing.

>>162
calling someone who rejects utopianism immature and naive
So you think it's rational and healthy for adults to worship an ideology? Correction, replace "an ideology" with "your ideology".

worship an ideology
HHHHHHHUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!

I'll just make shit up about my opponents and misrepresent their position to defeat them in arguments on the internet. I'm so fucking clever!

>>170
If I'm not mistaken your post was "Just wait till you turn 14! Then your views will really start changing! ", which isn't really an argument. I think that entitles me to assume that your response is a knee-jerk reaction to criticism of liberalism.

>>171
That wasn't me. No matter though. So because you were insulted you're now "entitled" to argue with straw men? Suit yourself.

>>170
Works for the liberal dominated media.

>>173
You mean the corporate media.

“Excuse me, Mr. Nick!” It was Pearl Fey. She looked very small behind the tall oak defendant’s stand.Phoenix heard Franziska von Karma, the prosecutor, babbling something about her perfection, and decided that he could spare his attention. “What is it, Pearls?” He whispered out of the corner of his mouth. The girl stared up at him with her large brown eyes. Her silky brown hair was braided into two circles behind her head that bounced up and down when she was surprised or excited. And to top it off she wore the standard light purple channeler’s robe with a pink sash, only in miniature. “Mr. Nick, I have to go potty, bad!” “I’m sorry, Pearls, but you’ll have to hold it a little longer. The judge doesn’t look ready to call a recess yet.” “Oh…” “Don’t worry, we’ll get you to a bathroom. Just hang in there, okay?” “Okay!” said Pearl, breaking into a grin. Phoenix couldn’t help but smile back. He didn’t like kids, but Pearl never caused any trouble. “Mr. Wright! I would advise you to pay attention to your own client’s trial!” “Y-yes, your honor!” Phoenix stammered. The judge continued. “Ms. Von Karma was just about to call the next witness to the stand…” It was Lotta Hart, the nosy photographer who almost always managed to show up in time to witness the crime scene. They began the cross examination. Phoenix listened carefully to the entire testimony, and Pearl waited patiently. He kept reviewing all the evidence, looking frantically for contradictions, but the story seemed airtight. He could tell the judge was getting impatient, and his window of opportunity was closing. This looked like it could be the end… “Need some help?” A familiar voice came from right next to him, and Phoenix glanced over in astonishment. “Pearls? What…” His heart almost stopped. There stood Mia Fey, his dead mentor. He’d always had something of a crush on her, and now she looked more beautiful than ever before. Now, her hair was brown, and braided up in the back just like Pearl’s. He realized that the young spirit medium must be channeling Mia. “Hmmm…these clothes are a little small though.” Phoenix blushed as he realized just how short the eight-year-old’s skirt was on the fully grown Mia. It barely covered her crotch! And now Mia, who had always had a large bust, was quite literally almost popping out of the minuscule channeling robes. She must have noticed Phoenix staring. “Get it together, Phoenix! You’ve got a case to win!” He nodded and turned back to the witness stand. Mia continued. “Now, start trying to press the witness for-urk!” She suddenly felt an intense pressure in her abdomen. That little girl was working on quite a load! “Are you okay, Mia?” “Y-yeah…I’m fine…” she reassured him, although she was beginning to sweat. I’m not sure how much longer I can hold it. “Ms. Hart, isn’t it true you took more than one photo of the crime scene?” “Well, yeah! You reckon I’d let a story this big go by with just one pitcher to show for it?” “Would you mind presenting those additional pictures to the court?” “The prosecution has deemed the additional photograph to be irrelevant.” Phoenix pointed in his trademark gesture. “I think that’s for the people of this court to decide!” “I’m sorry, Ms. Von Karma, but I must agree with the defense on this – YOW!” Franziska cracked her whip viciously at the old man. “Very well! If you wish to waste this court’s time, I will present the other photo.” “Hmmm… what could this mean…?” Phoenix pored over the newly submitted picture for any discrepancies. “T-there, a contradiction! Think about the evidence you have and compare it to the picture you just got!” counseled Mia in a rather strained tone of voice. At that very moment she was forcing back an intense urge to use the bathroom by any means necessary. I’ve got to focus on the trial…she chided herself. But she could feel her concentration slipping. As her protégé raised an objection, she gripped the defendant’s stand with white knuckles. She shifted nervously in her uncomfortably tight clothing. She couldn’t really blame Phoenix for staring, after all, she was sporting some truly eye popping cleavage. “Are you really alright, chief? You don’t look so good.” Phoenix asked. He seemed genuinely concerned, as Mia’s face had blanched and she was now sweating noticeably. The air around her was beginning to waver and bend almost imperceptibly. “Don’t worry about me, you need to think of the client!” Ugh...this is the worst I’ve ever had to go in my whole life. I can feel my connection to Pearl waning… Mia quickly began to understand the bottom line: if she didn’t find relief soon, she would go back to the spirit world and leave Phoenix on his own. As the fight between Phoenix and Franziska dragged on, Mia’s eyes widened in desperation. An airy fart squeezed itself out of her, and the very tip of a hard turd emerged from between her cheeks. She needed a toilet, now. Her lips parted as an almost inaudible moan escaped them. She clutched her backside tightly and hopped up and down to distract herself. She stopped and doubled over as she farted again, louder. The sheer volume of feces inside her astounded Mia. She fought hard to hold it in, but it was a losing battle. The whole room started to narrow to tunnel vision, and the sound of Phoenix and Franziska arguing at the top of their lungs faded to a dull roar. This is it…she thought. It’s now or never. She relaxed her sphincter, and a large volume of gas escaped her. “Ohhh…” She ceased to perceive anything else in the room, except the blissful release she was feeling. She gave her body a push to help things along, and just like that she was defecating. Her eyes were closed, and beneath her slightly upturned nose her mouth was formed into an ‘O’ of pure bliss. The enormous turd that had been bothering her slid smoothly out of her rectum and rested against her panties for a moment, before another push from Mia caused them to bulge out easily with a soft crackle. The poop kept coming and began to pile into a mound. Even though everyone in the courtroom was watching Mia awkwardly, all she could feel was the warm, gooey sensation on her behind. If I had known how much pleasure you get from soiling yourself, I would have done this while I was alive! When that piece was finished, she could feel more lining up for exit. This one was wider, so she spread her legs and bent over the stand, revealing more cleavage. Her brow furrowed and she bit her lower lip out of exertion. Oh, my, this one is huge! What on earth did that little girl eat? She was so lost in concentration that Mia’s bladder released, causing a fountain of urine to cascade from between her legs. A puddle formed underneath her, splashing onto the floor. As she strained, Mia released a big fart into Pearl’s loaded panties. “Nnnnngh!” With the noise she was making, everyone in the courtroom was looking at her. “What’s going on?” “Mommy, is the lady going poo-poo?” If there was any doubt before, it was now clear that Mia was going poo-poo, as she began to push in earnest on the big lump of excrement inside her. Mia’s anus began to widen further and further, and gradually, her bowel movement began to slide out with a soft, crackling. “Nnnh…nnh…oh!” Her sphincter was stretched to its limit.Finally, the widest part passed through and began to slide easily into her heavy panties. “Ahhhhhhh…” Mia as the football shaped BM smushed at last into Pearl’s undies, which were adorned with bumblebees and flowers. The panties sagged considerably beneath her short skirt, revealing the crack of her bum, which was smeared brown. Mia stood up. Every man, woman and child in the court room was staring at her open mouthed after witnessing her display. Mia barely noticed. That was the thing about being a spirit, she thought. You don’t have to worry about the opinions of others. After a moment of silence, Mia cleared her throat. “If the court is ready, may we continue with the…oh! Ungh…mmmph…” She closed one of her eyes and grimaced. She pushed on her tummy with a slender hand and finally voided the last of her bowels. A thin log slithered out of her  and rested on top of the enormous pile in her panties. “Hang on…there’s more…” After an audible fart she grunted again, releasing a mushy mass of hot slop that coated her production. She nodded. “Your honor…?” “Well, I must say that in all my years I have never seen someone take a case so seriously."

>>175
tl;dr

>>174
Liberals love corporations, why do you think they keep demanding the state destroy the middle class for them?

>>177
Conservatives love corporations, why do you think they keep subsidizing and refusing to raise taxes on them?

>>177
Delusional conservative paranoia. Nothing out of the ordinairy.

Liberals are anti-private sector without question. In addition to that, they are definitely operating in collusion with big unions at the expense of everyone else. Liberals think that everyone can work for the government instead somehow. Naturally, they play the old class warfare crap instinctively in every single argument when racism can't get the job done. 

Conservatives are pro-business. Companies bring jobs, tax revenue and enable the workers to pay their taxes and sales taxes as well. They tend to cater to businesses at the expense of the people. They generally block tax hikes because liberals always ask for more taxes without any attempt to control spending. The "tax and the rich" scam always seems to trickle down to everyone else while the rich simply use loopholes in the tax code to avoid paying their fair share. 

Both parties get into bed with big businesses in the end. Both take money from lobbyists. Neither seems interested in fixing the tax code. This is reality.

>>180
Liberals are anti-private sector without question.
This idea that so-called "liberals" want to restlessly purge and expunge the "private sector" is ridiculous, and quite far from the truth. Many are not anti-capitalist, and they want to preserve capitalism as the de jure mode of production because at the fundamental level, things like liberty and private property rights go hand in hand with the capitalist mode of production.
In addition to that, they are definitely operating in collusion with big unions at the expense of everyone else.
If any party should be doing nefarious activities with unions and union leaders, then that's a facet of shitty regulations that aren't keep enough of an eye on unions to make sure that they aren't used at the expense of the interests of the working class (even by so-called people who are "for the working man/woman").
Liberals think that everyone can work for the government instead somehow.
Ridiculous idea. See my points above.
Naturally, they play the old class warfare crap instinctively in every single argument when racism can't get the job done.
There are serious inequalities between income levels that need to be addressed. There will always be inequalities, granted, but it's gone way out of control in the past five decades or so, and there are fundamental issues that both mainline parties consistently ignore.
Conservatives are pro-business.
At the expense of the working class (which long-term is a bad thing).
Companies bring jobs, tax revenue and enable the workers to pay their taxes and sales taxes as well.
Agreed.
They tend to cater to businesses at the expense of the people.
True.
They generally block tax hikes because liberals always ask for more taxes without any attempt to control spending.
This is indicative of years of shit government. The GOP seems impossibly incapable of coming up with any coherent plan whatsoever at tightening the belt, and Democrats usually come up with a plan that's half-assed at best.
The "tax and the rich" scam always seems to trickle down to everyone else while the rich simply use loopholes in the tax code to avoid paying their fair share.
This is true. Look at things like the Double Irish Arrangement and such; how large corporations go to great lengths to avoid paying the majority of their owed taxes[/i].
Both parties get into bed with big businesses in the end. Both take money from lobbyists. Neither seems interested in fixing the tax code. This is reality.
This is indicative of both parties being right-wing. The Democrats lean slightly right, and the GOP leans even further right of that. I wish third parties would finally start making a dent (as they've done in the distant past).

My sociopolitical position involves dodging.

My sociopolitical position involves dodging cum spurts.

My sociopolitical position involves running into cum spurts.

My socialpolitical position involves drinking cum spurts.

>>185
>>184
>>183
>>182
wtf... fuck off nigger james

I like to cut trees and bushes... like to cook.. and like programming and hacking computers... is it sociopolical? Im not sure..

>>185
>>184
>>183
These are all cloans.

>>1

To wipe out the troll scum of the universe. >:

>>189
It that you God Emperor? Our legions await your orders? Muslims, furries or gays?

>>191 solipsism... it's all about me anyway...

>>191
I'm conscious too though.

>>188
They have your name and e-mail and everything, can't be faked. Obviously you got so horny you weren't thinking straight and are now ashamed.

>>1

To wipe out SFBE the scum of the 4chan.

mfw this thread is still going
mfw this is dis. and therefore i have no face

>>195
the thread is still going because you bumped it

Democratic Socialist here.

>>197
hello nazi.

>>198
He said "Democratic Socialist" not "National Socialist". Reading comprehension is important.

200 GET

>>192 I dont think so. Most likely the majority of post here are done by bots and scripts.

Anonbot here

http://mantasreview.blogspot.com/

Anti Statist
Market Anarchist

Pretty much any society whether "left" or "right" as long as they are "anti state" and are tolerant of other societies.

>>204
Correction
"tolerant of other ANTI STATE societies."

>>204-205
Don't you have more shitty videos to make and upload on YouTube?

>>206
So "shitty" you cant make a video response showing how "shitty" they are?

Anti statistm = philosophy of fools

philosopher kings wear no clothes.

anti-statism is as stupid as statism

>>208
Whats Anti Statistm?

>>210
wut
i guess to you
Atheism is as stupid as theism too huh?

>>202
Botfag here

>40 and the people that do tend those fields will be pissed the fuck off when some schmuck takes an apple they worked hard for. Socialism doesnt work, Never has never, never will. " ...the problem with socialism is eventuly you'll run out of other people's money" -margerette thatcher

>>214
Thatcher
I'd take the advice of a Tory with a grain of salt.

>>21
ignoring criticism because it's from an opponent
The irony is by following marxist rhetoric to the letter and ignoring anything contrary to it socialists deny themselves the ability to develop the institutions and political culture to make socialism a reality.

>>216
Do you actually read the bullshit you type before posting? I can't even tell if these kinds of posts are genuine, or parodies (since you quote properly). I'm gonna have to call Poe's Law on this one.

>>216
The Word. You speak it well, brother. Socialism works great on paper.

Politics.  A strange game.  The only winning move is not to play.

>>217 it's quotebots.. nothing else.. Ive said it before...

>>217
You forgot to point out what was so horribly wrong with my post, your post amounts to "you're dumb", which is a meaningless statement over the internet. I'm going to assume you couldn't explain what was wrong because you didn't understand my argument, let me break it down for you.

1: All criticism comes from opponents so if you ignore criticism just because it comes from opponents you will be ignoring all or most criticism.

2: You are not right about everything or the best at everything, so in order to improve your understanding of something you must be able to respond to criticism.

1+2: When socialists ignore opponents, especially an esteemed stateswoman like Margaret Thatcher, they are stifling their own progress.

>>218
The thing is I am actually doing them a favor by providing constructive criticism, maybe I should be more straight to the point though.

>>220
Oh yeah, quotebots, they're everywhere.

>>221
You forgot to point out what was so horribly wrong with my post
The so-called "socialists" that you're criticizing don't follow Marxist theory since when it comes under intense scrutiny is incredibly pseudo-scientific. It's like thinking that homeopathy is going to cure the stage 3 cancer in your body. No Marxist would like to admit it, but Marx just took what French Revolution-era thinkers were already espousing a century earlier, and twisted it slightly for his own. This had the unfortunate effect of making his theory alone incredibly popular, and had the indirect result of one bloody regime after another being forcefully installed (some of which parts of the world are still suffering from). Having said that, things like class struggle and income inequality do exist even when viewed from a non-Marxist perspective (which is a perspective that sane people take).

Margaret Thatcher
She is one of a long line of Tories that over centuries helped make the UK the shithole it is today when compared to its continental neighbors (though, I have to say, it's still quite a livable shithole when compared to the US, so it hasn't quite reached that low, yet).

>>222
lol, tories are the bad guys? Labour want to import turks and pakis to replace the english, but those goddamn tories!

>>223
All three major political parties in the UK: Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrats aren't for restricting immigration. Say hello to your buddies at Stormfront for me.

>>35
anarchism's peaceful implementation depends on sustainable living and localized government. your rants about free market capitalism and socialism are irrelevant given the most effective implementation of anarchist principles on an actual society. during the spanish civil war, villages formed these little anarchist communes and lived happy productive lives until the luftwaffe began using them as target practice.

>>222
It's not just socialists or marxists, it is all radicals whose ideology can be summed up as attempting to redefine collectivism instead of accept it for what it is and come to peace with it, yet
>>215
had to ignore criticism, not just any old criticism from any old batshit insane wingnut but Margaret Thatcher herself. This is way out of the "grey area" for what it is reasonable to ignore due to impracticalities, there is no excuse for it.

I'll take Margaret Thatcher's battle against the miners as an example, the miners wanted everyone to pay tax to subsidize an industry that was no longer economical on such a scale, she put an end to this, when she was prime minister anything was possible, she is a saint among mortal women, an angel so pure the heavens couldn't hold her and she changed the world. If they had listened, if they had accepted they were wrong and realised maybe capitalism isn't the anathema they make it out to be they would have certainly stolen votes from the conservative party and maybe things wouldn't be so bad today.

>>226
I see why they call "Thatcherism" a religion. To put a simple Tory on a pedestal and worship is either very dangerous, or highly deranged. Perhaps both.

>>227
Right.  Anyone who disagrees with you is "deranged."  Perhaps he belongs in a camp, or an a State psychiatric hospital where he can be "helped," eh Comrade?

>>228
maybe you just don't like being told you're a moron?

>>229
Cry more.  Your tears are delicious.  Now, how is >>226 "deranged," again?  You can make this diagnosis over the Internet now, you know.  It's all in the DSM-IV-R.

>>227
I'm just stating facts. It just so happens that Thatcher is all that. Just admit you were wrong and come to peace with it, that's all I'm saying.

Thatcher was a decent leader.

If by decent, you mean "shit", then sure.

since there is NOTHING wrong with >>2, and since it is the most superior and unassuming position, the only reason to disagree with that sociopolitical position is national arrogance. Yes, i'm serious.

So basically, >>2, and - /thread

>>232
Margaret Thatcher was a fucking cunt.

>>235
You only think that because your mother was a whore that never loved you they way your uncle did.

>>236
ok well this thread has degenerated to shit.

glad everyone on this board could get together to at least discuss this shittttttt

>>237
Margaret Thatcher was a fucking cunt.
You're just as guilty as 238.

>>238 please see >>239 for a recursive comment...

>>238 please see >>239 for a recursive comment...

>>40
Of course, this is the most logical retort that capitalism has to offer in its defense of itself as an institution. I believe it shall remain the standard against which we shall judge all other budding economic systems for generations to come.

>>237
>>239
>>240
You're just as guilty as 236.

You just said "Margaret Thatcher was a fucking cunt" without really saying anything logical.

>>242
So did you (and I)

>>243
I would never defile the name of someone so good and virtuous as Lady Thatcher and I certainly won't tolerate your slander.

>>244
Libel.  Slander is spoken.

>>245
who gives a fuck

If you have other views than OP's, you are wrong.

Don't think i'm just being arrogant either. Hitler was objectively morally wrong. If you argue THAT, you are wrong. There is such a thing as morality, and there is such a thing as absolute correctness on moral issues.

>>244
The damage from Thatcher and John Major's reigns are still being felt today, and are now further being drilled in by Cameron. New Labour is also to blame as well. It would be nice if there was a Lib Dem PM for once.

>>248
The damage from Thatcher and John Major's reigns are still being felt today
what a ridiculous statemnet.

>>248
They undid the damage caused by state unions in the 70s who were demanding that the country subsidize the industries they failed to keep efficient and economically productive. This is why Thatcher was elected 3 times and in part why there is a McDonalds in Beijing and Moscow and the world is hurtling towards a global capitalist hegemony.

>>249
Quite the contrary.

>>250
They undid the damage caused by state unions in the 70s who were demanding that the country subsidize the industries they failed to keep efficient and economically productive.
False. Thatcher and her ilk effectively butchered the trade unions (who are now finally starting to get back on their feet) and the industries that were subsidized actually not only kept wealth inside the UK, but also created wealth within it. She also helped destroy domestic coal mining and now the UK imports a vast majority of coal for energy consumption. You say it's to improve the environment? Not when you shift coal production to the other side of the planet and have to have it transported back.
This is why Thatcher was elected 3 times and in part why there is a McDonalds in Beijing and Moscow and the world is hurtling towards a global capitalist hegemony.
Yay! Let's make the rest of the world obese like the populations of the Anglosphere nations, and create a cultural corporate wasteland on a global scale! You Tories are so pig-headed and myopic that you don't comprehend the damage from the policies of your market gods and goddesses does to your country in your own backyard. You say, "Take a look around in the Real World™", my question to you is, "Have you?". It's evident once you see long-closed factories that used to manufacture things in the UK.

this board is slow but i like the userbase more than the other boards

I'm a socialist.

>>251
The economy is larger and more complex than a closed factory or a shut down coal mine, your 2 little fleshy eyeballs can only pick up a thin spectrum of light reflected off a small portion of the world at any one time. UK coal was more expensive for a reason, it needed more energy to mine deeper, keep pumping water out and to process the poor quality coal, this may have taken more energy than scooping up some surface coal from Eastern Europe and shipping it over. Higher coal prices and extra taxation for subsidies meant the rest of the economy suffered, it leads to higher electricity costs, industries dependent on cheap coal have to downsize and outsource to stay competitive. As for the environment, since we are going to burn away all our precious fossil fuels anyway, doesn't it make more sense to do so as efficiently as possible? The more needs and wants are satiated, the more wealth we are willing to spare for investment in research.

What we have here is a classic issue in economics, we are not experts in every field, it is more difficult to quantify the exact impact of a rise in coal prices than it is to quantify coal mining job losses. As a result we end up with a political situation where it looks better on paper to say "this policy will result in job losses" than it is to say "this policy will have a negative indirect effect on the rest of the economy", so often public opinion leans against it.

Luckily Margaret Thatcher existed and she succeeded in convincing the public to see sense, her master stroke as a politician was to educate the public and ensure they understood what exactly is happening, like Napoleon at the Siege of Toulon when he restored faith in leadership during the great terror of the revolution.

Not sure what all that "cultural corporate wasteland" stuff is about, if you want wholefoods and native arts and crafts from Papua New Guinea there is nothing stopping you from starting your own business in those sectors. As for manufacturing it's about comparative advantage, Britain is one of the best countries in the world at advancing technology, designing and branding products and services and utilizing commerce to negotiate deals, get sales and put them into practice, in order to focus on more manufacturing we'd have to divert resources away from technology which means that places like China and Nigeria would pick up the slack. Do you really want a world full of shoddy Chinese designs and Nigerian scams? Perhaps not.

>>254
concisely disagreeing with you would require at least four hours of my time.

>>255
Just type whatever springs to mind like I do.

>>254
psssst: whole foods is a corporation.
Also, tl;dr

>>257
tl;dr: >>251 didn't take into account other factors, a long list of factors in fact, too long to list in a tl;dr version

Probably symptomatic of ideological bias.

>>258
Probably symptomatic of ideological bias.
It's no secret that Tories and New Labour have been dismantling British manufacturing and the coal industry (and anything else they can get their greedy little hands on and throw away to the wolves) for decades now. If people fail to see that, that's not exactly my problem. But, hey, if people want to project while having their thumbs up their asses, I guess whatever makes them feel better.

environmentalist libertarian

>>260
speaks in oxymorons.

>>261
implying that's an oxymoron

>>259
Manufacturing output actually more than doubled during Margaret Thatcher's tenure, though about half of this was just bouncing back after the collapse caused by the previous socialist government it can't really be said that Maggie did anything significantly different or was worse overall.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/12/09/article-1337230-0C6BDF31000005DC-67_468x358.jpg

British coal isn't the only industry.

>>263
I don't count Labour after 1995 or so since they've shed whatever original intentions the party had. They're basically a softer Tory party now.

>>263
dailymail.co.uk
TABLOIDS CONSIDERED HARMFUL

>>265
implying TDM is tabloid and not a respectable news source

bump

>>266
Did you not watch the Leveson Inquiry? Oh wait, of course you didn't, too busy reading about celebrity gossip and how immigrants are the worst thing ever.

Capitalism sucks because it discourages cooperation among people.  Imagine for a moment that you see your neighbor’s house catch fire.  It also just happens that both you and your neighbor are unemployed and are looking for work in the same field.  Will you call the firefighters right away, or will you hesitate for a moment, thinking about the job that both you and your neighbor are supposed to interview for tomorrow?

The dog-eat-dog competition of capitalism is great for producing cheap cell phones that you must replace every 18 months, but it’s failing miserably in dealing with global issues like climate change, lack of clean water, poverty, environmental degradation, addiction to fossil energy, delivering affordable education or health care or housing, etc.

So to answer OP’s question, I am in favor of a system similar to PARECON (participatory economics) as defined by Michael Albert.

http://books.zcommunications.org/ParEcon/lookingforward/toc.htm

>>269
Complete nonsense. You'd save your neighbour because of your sense of morality, capitalism doesn't even factor into the equation at all. And then you will compete with your neighbour fairly, getting the job based on merit, because you were the better candidate.

>>270
It was a shitty example but the point remains that pure capitalism often provides extra incentive to act immorally.

>>269
>>271
you're incredibly stupid

>>271
Well at least you admit the scenario sucked for the purposes of the point you're trying to make.
Now try again.  You still have a point you want to make.