Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Every politician is full of shit. Only the ones who kiss enough ass to get ahead reach a place of power. But if you hate all politics, get off your ass and do something to change it

At 7/12/09 06:47 PM, Codename46 wrote:

First of all, "Libertarians" aren't even libertarians in the traditional sense of the word.
Second of all, any bourgeois capitalist party is full of shit, be it Libertarian, Green, Independent, "Communist", Democrat, or Republican.

It's not even like your vote matters.

What party do you suggest then, if any?

N/A

N/A

You put "Communist" in quotes and talk about "bourgeois" parties. Are you a communist?

At 7/12/09 07:02 PM, Codename46 wrote:

N/A

You put "Communist" in quotes and talk about "bourgeois" parties. Are you a communist?

I'm an anarcho-communist.

At 7/12/09 07:04 PM, Kev-o wrote:

At 7/12/09 07:02 PM, Codename46 wrote:

N/A

You put "Communist" in quotes and talk about "bourgeois" parties. Are you a communist?

I'm an anarcho-communist.

Good luck abolishing private property and money.

At 7/12/09 07:11 PM, Codename46 wrote:

At 7/12/09 07:04 PM, Kev-o wrote:

At 7/12/09 07:02 PM, Codename46 wrote:

N/A

You put "Communist" in quotes and talk about "bourgeois" parties. Are you a communist?

I'm an anarcho-communist.

Good luck abolishing private property and money.

The Spanish Anarchists didn't seem to have much of a problem doing it back in '36, but I appreciate your snobbery.

At 7/12/09 07:14 PM, Kev-o wrote: The Spanish Anarchists didn't seem to have much of a problem doing it back in '36, but I appreciate your snobbery.

They are an awful example of successful anarchy, though, as they did not last more than... what... six months? That might be an overstatement.

At 7/12/09 07:23 PM, Tancrisism wrote:

At 7/12/09 07:14 PM, Kev-o wrote: The Spanish Anarchists didn't seem to have much of a problem doing it back in '36, but I appreciate your snobbery.

They are an awful example of successful anarchy, though, as they did not last more than... what... six months? That might be an overstatement.

It lasted 3 Years, and it has to do with the fact that they were being undermined by the Republican Government, Franco, (who had help from Hitler, among others), and the Soviet Union.

At 7/12/09 07:31 PM, Kev-o wrote:

At 7/12/09 07:23 PM, Tancrisism wrote:

At 7/12/09 07:14 PM, Kev-o wrote: The Spanish Anarchists didn't seem to have much of a problem doing it back in '36, but I appreciate your snobbery.

They are an awful example of successful anarchy, though, as they did not last more than... what... six months? That might be an overstatement.

It lasted 3 Years, and it has to do with the fact that they were being undermined by the Republican Government, Franco, (who had help from Hitler, among others), and the Soviet Union.

Not to mention the fact that an anarchy just does not work well with human nature, but hey, whatevs!

I'm sorry, but anarchy would only catapult the world into another Dark Age.

At 7/12/09 01:20 PM, Shinzura wrote: Ugh... I agree with the idea, but "balance" is an ambiguous political term, so I'm tempted to ask what you mean by that.

I personally think that we should look at the Constitution like a career: Don't change it every day, or you'll get nowhere, but if there's enough reason to switch, do it

I think what you said right there is what I meant by "balance". Change when necessary, judge it from both viewpoints and compare, that sort of thing.

I'm sorry, but anarchy would only catapult the world into another Dark Age.

While full-fledged anarchy would indeed be undesirable, keeping government intervention in the free market and in social lives is still desirable.

Before any 6th grader comes in and tries to tell me how a free market leads to monopolies like Monsanto and Microsoft, it's usually government in bed with corporations, and corporations having influence in politics (e.g KBR, Monsanto) that leads to monopolies and kills competition.

At 7/12/09 08:00 PM, Codename46 wrote:

I'm sorry, but anarchy would only catapult the world into another Dark Age.

While full-fledged anarchy would indeed be undesirable, keeping government intervention in the free market and in social lives is still desirable.

I'm assuming you meant "undesirable".

The main problem I have with the idea of lassez-faire is that there has never, ever been an absolutely free market. If there is even the tiniest, seemingly insignificant bit of government intervention, the idea of free market fails. And this country, sad as it is, was founded with laws regulating the market that are as old as the constitution, some older.

Before any 6th grader comes in and tries to tell me how a free market leads to monopolies like Monsanto and Microsoft, it's usually government in bed with corporations, and corporations having influence in politics (e.g KBR, Monsanto) that leads to monopolies and kills competition.

Right, but because there has never really been a free market, attempting to limit government restrictions in one area while they are still abundant in other areas helps produce the great monopolies that, for instance, the US saw during the latter half of the 19th century until the union movement in the early 20th.

At 7/12/09 07:04 PM, Kev-o wrote:

At 7/12/09 07:02 PM, Codename46 wrote:

N/A

You put "Communist" in quotes and talk about "bourgeois" parties. Are you a communist?

I'm an anarcho-communist.

Communism and anarchy are both absolute polar opposites, and neither of them works.

At 7/12/09 08:42 PM, GrammerNaziElite wrote:

At 7/12/09 07:04 PM, Kev-o wrote:

At 7/12/09 07:02 PM, Codename46 wrote:

N/A

You put "Communist" in quotes and talk about "bourgeois" parties. Are you a communist?

I'm an anarcho-communist.

Communism and anarchy are both absolute polar opposites, and neither of them works.

Is that so?
Or if Wikipedia seems less time-consuming: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_C ommunism

Is that so?
Or if Wikipedia seems less time-consuming: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_C ommunism

So... You abolish all government control, private property, and authority, and then distribute the means of production by means of a direct democracy and counsels?

It's the exact same thing as Communism, except with a few notes stapled on saying that even though the government controls every aspect of production, it doesn't REALLY have power.

At 7/13/09 12:28 AM, GrammerNaziElite wrote:
So... You abolish all government control, private property, and authority, and then distribute the means of production by means of a direct democracy and counsels?

The workers seize the means of production from the capitalists.

It's the exact same thing as Communism, except with a few notes stapled on saying that even though the government controls every aspect of production, it doesn't REALLY have power.

THE WORKERS control every aspect of production, there is no government, no state.

do you know why liberals suck? not because of their views, but because they're weak-willed and take care not to offend anyone. they can't get anything done. i'm not saying conservatives are any better though because they get the wrong things done.

this world needs a global socialist dictatorship, emphasis on dictatorship.

THE WORKERS control every aspect of production, there is no government, no state.

So... you mean a workers counsel has to get together to control the state? A group, in charge of managing food distribution in the economy? A... government, perhaps?

Communism and anarchy cannot mix properly.

At 7/13/09 10:11 AM, GrammerNaziElite wrote:

THE WORKERS control every aspect of production, there is no government, no state.

So... you mean a workers counsel has to get together to control the state? A group, in charge of managing food distribution in the economy? A... government, perhaps?

Communism and anarchy cannot mix properly.

Anarchy and any government can't mix... That would be an oxymoron

At 7/13/09 10:11 AM, GrammerNaziElite wrote:

THE WORKERS control every aspect of production, there is no government, no state.

So... you mean a workers counsel has to get together to control the state? A group, in charge of managing food distribution in the economy? A... government, perhaps?

Not to control the state, to eliminate it.
Believe it or not, organization can exist in a society without it being a centralized government.

Communism and anarchy cannot mix properly.

Yes, they can. Anarchism and communism share the same basic goal; a stateless, classless society.
I just believe in a different way of getting there than say, Marxists.
Communism is not a system of government, it's merely an economic system.

With the whole "Liberals hate America" thing, you're thinking of Sean Hannity. And, well, he's frankly kind of crazy, and takes conservatism to that level too. Whenever someone disagrees with him (liberals often do) he says they hate America, throws a tantrum, then is presumably given a diaper change and put down for a nap. Don't trust him for any sort of fair opinion. We're talking about the man who has said "There is nothing in the Constitution about this separation of church and state". And to boot, wrote these. (first two)

Liberals want to cover up a problem with a short term solution that pleases people now and lets the next administration. (Look up why the banks were allowed to give out bad loans that caused the recession and it will trace back to Clinton.) But conservatives use solutions that seem stupid at first but if you research it makes more sense. (Giving citizens guns actually cuts down on crime due to threat against criminals.)

At 7/13/09 05:04 PM, tiskewl wrote: (Giving citizens guns actually cuts down on crime due to threat against criminals.)

Yes because the US has one of the lowest crime rates in the world. O wait...

At 7/13/09 01:09 PM, Kev-o wrote:

Believe it or not, organization can exist in a society without it being a centralized government.

No it most certainly can not.

I'm not a Hannity fan, but he is right about there being nothing in the Constitution about the separation of church and state. The first amendment recognizes the people's right to follow whatever faith they choose and prohibits the establishment of a state religion (like they had in England). The phrase "separation of church and state" comes from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists.

For the record, I trace it back even further to Jimmy Carter. He signed the Community Redevelopment Act into law. The Clinton Administration gave it some teeth. ACORN (or whatever they're calling themselves these days) deserves some of the blame as well.

At 7/13/09 06:46 PM, DizzeeRascal wrote:

Yes because the US has one of the lowest crime rates in the world. O wait...

do you some research and you'll find that the states with little gun control have lower crime rates than states with strict gun control laws.

Of course, it's not guns or the lack of them that make the crime so bad, high population density and a lack of morals on the part of the people cause of a lot of it. Also, Americans having a very negative perception of the police does not contribute at all.

An inefficient police force isn't helping either. My brother was stationed in Japan for a while and after he was transferred away he managed to get some off base time and visited Japan. He made mention of the police being held in a much higher regard than in America. Also he made mention of miniature police stations every few blocks, with a few officers at a time at all times, and they would patrol their small area on a bicycle. Sounded like a damned fine idea to me, especially in larger cities. Would make for much faster police response times to set up a lot of small stations and man them with a small group of officers.

Would also help if the police were actually part of the community while in uniform, instead of 'those guys in a uniform with big dark glasses who ride around all day in their cruisers'

At 7/13/09 05:04 PM, tiskewl wrote:

(Giving citizens guns actually cuts down on crime due to threat against criminals.)

I'm not so sure about that. How would a criminal know you own a gun? Could you get in time if you were being robbed? Assuming you could, are you a faster or better shot then he or she is? And, a weapon for home defense, let's just say a Ruger, is 46 times more likely to kill or wound a member of your household than it is to kill or wound an assailant. Children are also likely to find and misuse them, since a weapon for home defense would, in all likelihood, be kept within easy reach such as in a dresser drawer, as opposed to being safely put in a weapons locker. All in all, while a gun may give a sense of security, a home security system is a much better investment if your aim is to ward off criminals. Especially since a gun couldn't call a fire department, the police, or an ambulance if that's what the emergency calls for.

At 7/13/09 11:41 PM, GrammerNaziElite wrote:

At 7/13/09 01:09 PM, Kev-o wrote:

Believe it or not, organization can exist in a society without it being a centralized government.

No it most certainly can not.

Yes, it most certainly can.

Yes, it most certainly can.

Try throwing that into America today.

I dare you.

At 7/13/09 11:58 PM, Korriken wrote: Also he made mention of miniature police stations every few blocks, with a few officers at a time at all times, and they would patrol their small area on a bicycle. Sounded like a damned fine idea to me, especially in larger cities. Would make for much faster police response times to set up a lot of small stations and man them with a small group of officers.

Though i agree we should respect our police officers more. The police station every few blocks may not work as well as it does in japan. this is being due to urban sprawl being rampant. Though it may work in densely populated cities like Chicago and New York.