If you are going to vote...
- Thread starter Crowley.
- Start date
Bill.Nye
Active member
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories
Spark notes: People who either outright deny or "question" the fact that Barack Obama was born in the United States and is therefore not eligible to be president.
Spark notes: People who either outright deny or "question" the fact that Barack Obama was born in the United States and is therefore not eligible to be president.
EastCoast315
Active member
hardly a real argument. We have no choice who runs, and before you say "well you could just run yourself", that's not even true. None of us are rich enough.
Bill.Nye
Active member
That's because of how the scanning software generates PDF documents dumb shit. Even Fox News and the national review, those bastions of pro Obama sentiment, dismissed that absurd theory.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/265767/pdf-layers-obamas-birth-certificate-nathan-goulding#
Also snopes
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/birthcertificate.asp
Also common fucking sense. The president is thoroughly vetted by the Secret service, the FBI, the CIA etc before he is allowed his security clearance. Are they all in on the conspiracy? Is the editor of the two local Hawaii newspapers where his birth was announced in on it? Is the Hawaiian department of health in on it? Use your brain.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/265767/pdf-layers-obamas-birth-certificate-nathan-goulding#
Also snopes
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/birthcertificate.asp
Also common fucking sense. The president is thoroughly vetted by the Secret service, the FBI, the CIA etc before he is allowed his security clearance. Are they all in on the conspiracy? Is the editor of the two local Hawaii newspapers where his birth was announced in on it? Is the Hawaiian department of health in on it? Use your brain.
EastCoast315
Active member
I mean, it won't take much to change it. Basically, it will change itself. Markets always correct themselves, even after ludicrous amounts of regulation
Tree60
Active member
I hate it when people say that Obama has done nothing in his term as a president... Everything has to run through the right led congress, which makes it very difficult for obama to pass anything that he wants to go through. The president doesn't have the power to conjure laws out of his ass.
Campeador
Active member
Not his fault, he tried to get shit done when he first went in. However, trying to fix the People's Republic of California was a task too much for even the Governator. As soon as he tried to get California's finances in order, the government unions and democrat state senators came after him with a vengeance. The same kind of people like the professors who offered extra credit to college students to go out and protest against Scott Brown in Wisconsin.
The people of California have certainly benefited from one-party rule. Or maybe I'm just thinking of the masses of unionized government employees and welfare parasites who suck the state coffers dry.
The people of California have certainly benefited from one-party rule. Or maybe I'm just thinking of the masses of unionized government employees and welfare parasites who suck the state coffers dry.
Campeador
Active member
Why try and mislead, just call yourself what you actually are, an anarcho-syndicalist.
An anarcho-syndicalist legal order is by far the the worst possible system of government. By placing producer interests above all consumer interests, the only outcome can be the complete destruction of an economy and a standstill in economic progress. Anyone who actually advocates for a system based on limited private property based on the doctrine of mutualism, ie the ownership of property solely based on personal occupancy and use, needs to have his head examined.
"Anarchism" is nothing more than a very warped form of communism.
An anarcho-syndicalist legal order is by far the the worst possible system of government. By placing producer interests above all consumer interests, the only outcome can be the complete destruction of an economy and a standstill in economic progress. Anyone who actually advocates for a system based on limited private property based on the doctrine of mutualism, ie the ownership of property solely based on personal occupancy and use, needs to have his head examined.
"Anarchism" is nothing more than a very warped form of communism.
Bill.Nye
Active member
I do call myself an anarcho-syndiclist, which is a subset of anarchism.
"An anarcho-syndicalist legal order is by far the the worst possible system of government. By placing producer interests above all consumer interests, the only outcome can be the complete destruction of an economy and a standstill in economic progress."
LOL wut? Every producer is also a consumer.
"'Anarchism' is nothing more than a very warped form of communism."
LOL no, the soviet union was a warped form of communism. Communism was supposed to be stateless, like Anarchism.
"An anarcho-syndicalist legal order is by far the the worst possible system of government. By placing producer interests above all consumer interests, the only outcome can be the complete destruction of an economy and a standstill in economic progress."
LOL wut? Every producer is also a consumer.
"'Anarchism' is nothing more than a very warped form of communism."
LOL no, the soviet union was a warped form of communism. Communism was supposed to be stateless, like Anarchism.
howlongcanausern
Active member
more like 'educated, employed, east coast professionals'
volvotom
Active member
Arnold made no effort to reach out to senior leadership of either party in making inroads on his plans. He dropped the ball.
Say what you will about Gerry Brown, but he has taken a VERY middle of the road approach to everything. Pension Reform? Budget Cuts? Hardly far left ideals.
Check out California Forward, they're a non-partisan group working on improving efficiency in government through common sense reforms.
Also a cool book on the history of the problems and dysfunction of the state is California Crack Up by Matthews and Paul. If you're into that kind of thing.
Say what you will about Gerry Brown, but he has taken a VERY middle of the road approach to everything. Pension Reform? Budget Cuts? Hardly far left ideals.
Check out California Forward, they're a non-partisan group working on improving efficiency in government through common sense reforms.
Also a cool book on the history of the problems and dysfunction of the state is California Crack Up by Matthews and Paul. If you're into that kind of thing.
EastCoast315
Active member
Dumbest post of the year right here, y'all.
Anarchism is the antithesis of "economic progress" and ultimately, technological progress. Because of the decentralization of power; placing power back in the hands of those it affects, local autonomy, etc, massive forms of systematic technology will erode rather quickly.
"Economic progress" is systematized exploitation on a massive level; it's not a good thing.
And I suppose, from a distance, anarchism is a form of communism, with a KEY difference: it is not centralized, as every other communist society has been structured. It is decentralized, localized, and the concerns of individuals don't go unanswered: the opportunity to change the status quo is right before them, and they can fully exercise it. This is actually MORE freedom than "capitalism" or whatever is going on today.
Anarchism is the antithesis of "economic progress" and ultimately, technological progress. Because of the decentralization of power; placing power back in the hands of those it affects, local autonomy, etc, massive forms of systematic technology will erode rather quickly.
"Economic progress" is systematized exploitation on a massive level; it's not a good thing.
And I suppose, from a distance, anarchism is a form of communism, with a KEY difference: it is not centralized, as every other communist society has been structured. It is decentralized, localized, and the concerns of individuals don't go unanswered: the opportunity to change the status quo is right before them, and they can fully exercise it. This is actually MORE freedom than "capitalism" or whatever is going on today.
Campeador
Active member
I don't think so, I'd say anyone who espouses the virtues of a political ideology that died at the end of the Spanish Civil War makes for a far better "dumbest post of the year". Maybe I shouldn't equate anarchism with communism, it's more accurately compared to hard-line Marxism, which also predicts the obsolescence of the state. Marxism and anarchism are also similar in their focus on industrial labor rather than agricultural, since both believe in the "idiocy of rural life".
Let me get this straight, so there's no confusion.
I can't say I know for sure, but it seems like a lot of your belief seems to stem from a
misunderstanding of wealth. Like the American liberal left, you seem to view wealth as a fixed quantity which must be shared
equally. One looks around, sees all the inequality in the world, stops
and thinks, "well gee, isn't it sort of arbitrary that, here we are,
human beings on earth, and rather than sharing what's here, we have this
artificial institution called 'property', whereby a few greedy people
grasp up far more than they need, while over there all those people have
far less." You think, sure we could be like the progressives who seek
to redistribute some of the wealth to increase "fairness", but why not
go even further: if there were no property to begin with, there wouldn't
be the issue of some owning more than others. Then we can be equals,
brothers, have solidarity. Sounds nice.
The frustrating part is trying to square all that with economics. It's
not easy to do. For my money, the number one misunderstanding is that
the vaunted anarcho-syndicalist means of production, which must be communally used, but
never owned, had to have been created by somebody. It's not as though
there's been a simple shuffling of a fixed quantity of "means" throughout
the centuries. But that's should be obvious to anybody in in this forum.
In short, the anarchist slogan is "property is theft", because property, in your mind, is nothing more than a human mental construct that a few
powerful people at some point in the past established in order to
exploit everybody else, and everybody under that yoke just sort of buy
it without examining whether such a thing actually exists. All their
talk of exploitation begins with that assertion. Bosses exploit workers,
not because they should pay workers more, but because their very
function is to exploit. Any money they make comes directly from workers
rightful salary. And the bullshit rhetoric goes on and on.
It's not as if workers' coops are illegal under the free market system, workers could easily pool together and share the means of production (like say a factory). If such a system is so superior, how come it never happens? Because it's a sham, and therefore the only way to truly implement "anarchism" is through a coercive governing force, which is exactly what happened during the Spanish Civil War, the only real (and ultimately tragic) attempt to implement anarchism. It's the same back-breaking dilemma that faces Marxism. A stagnant syndicalist society cannot coexist next to a prosperous "exploitative" capitalist society, therefore all must be coerced into syndicalism or none at all.
Let me get this straight, so there's no confusion.
I can't say I know for sure, but it seems like a lot of your belief seems to stem from a
misunderstanding of wealth. Like the American liberal left, you seem to view wealth as a fixed quantity which must be shared
equally. One looks around, sees all the inequality in the world, stops
and thinks, "well gee, isn't it sort of arbitrary that, here we are,
human beings on earth, and rather than sharing what's here, we have this
artificial institution called 'property', whereby a few greedy people
grasp up far more than they need, while over there all those people have
far less." You think, sure we could be like the progressives who seek
to redistribute some of the wealth to increase "fairness", but why not
go even further: if there were no property to begin with, there wouldn't
be the issue of some owning more than others. Then we can be equals,
brothers, have solidarity. Sounds nice.
The frustrating part is trying to square all that with economics. It's
not easy to do. For my money, the number one misunderstanding is that
the vaunted anarcho-syndicalist means of production, which must be communally used, but
never owned, had to have been created by somebody. It's not as though
there's been a simple shuffling of a fixed quantity of "means" throughout
the centuries. But that's should be obvious to anybody in in this forum.
In short, the anarchist slogan is "property is theft", because property, in your mind, is nothing more than a human mental construct that a few
powerful people at some point in the past established in order to
exploit everybody else, and everybody under that yoke just sort of buy
it without examining whether such a thing actually exists. All their
talk of exploitation begins with that assertion. Bosses exploit workers,
not because they should pay workers more, but because their very
function is to exploit. Any money they make comes directly from workers
rightful salary. And the bullshit rhetoric goes on and on.
It's not as if workers' coops are illegal under the free market system, workers could easily pool together and share the means of production (like say a factory). If such a system is so superior, how come it never happens? Because it's a sham, and therefore the only way to truly implement "anarchism" is through a coercive governing force, which is exactly what happened during the Spanish Civil War, the only real (and ultimately tragic) attempt to implement anarchism. It's the same back-breaking dilemma that faces Marxism. A stagnant syndicalist society cannot coexist next to a prosperous "exploitative" capitalist society, therefore all must be coerced into syndicalism or none at all.
EastCoast315
Active member
I like that you wrote "you" so much. It was sort of like reading my horoscope.
First, I'm not an anarcho-syndicalist. In fact, I have quite a few doubts as to the viability of such a society, and I never once expressed inherently anarcho-syndicalist values. I have no faith whatsoever in the "virtues of industrialism" or whatever Chomsky stew they're spitting these days, either. In fact, I stand firmly against industrial development of any kind beyond the explicitly localized. And comparing anything I do or say to "the American left" is a testament to how little you know about me.
Let me get this straight, so there's no confusion.
I am only an anarchist for lack of a better term. To me, government is not the problem, capital is not the problem, and property is not the problem. These are three of many devices that stem from the real issue: Industrial Technology.
Our species is about 2,000,000 years old; for most of it, we were nomadic hunter gatherers, with few exceptions. As such, our bodies and minds have evolved to meet the stressors placed on them by this way of life. There wasn't central government. The level of stress humans placed on their environment was akin to other top-level food chain members, and could easily be carried by the earth. The Neolithic revolution was some 10,000 years ago - fairly recent; though we had enough time to adjust that we're evolving to handle it, and it's not much of a problem. However, just 200 years ago, (a blink of an eye), the industrial revolution introduced new types of stress that humans had never seen before.
Depression, cancer, overpopulation, listlessness, obesity, all of these problems stem from our inability to evolve as quickly as our environments do. These laissez-faire folks pushing "technological/economic development/progress" are the problem. They strive for growth upon growth upon growth, never considering the human or environmental connotations, and the results have been devastating. Look around at the world.
As such, I advocate for revolution against the technological-industrial system, which may or may not make use of violence. We've reached this point, and it's our jobs to examine where we are today, and destroy the means of production beyond repair, offering no alternative other than nature. If we fail to act now, the system will continue to grow, permanently reducing humans and all other organisms into engineered products, unable to function without technology. Nature as we know it will cease to exist -perhaps not immediately, but sooner than we'd think.
First, I'm not an anarcho-syndicalist. In fact, I have quite a few doubts as to the viability of such a society, and I never once expressed inherently anarcho-syndicalist values. I have no faith whatsoever in the "virtues of industrialism" or whatever Chomsky stew they're spitting these days, either. In fact, I stand firmly against industrial development of any kind beyond the explicitly localized. And comparing anything I do or say to "the American left" is a testament to how little you know about me.
Let me get this straight, so there's no confusion.
I am only an anarchist for lack of a better term. To me, government is not the problem, capital is not the problem, and property is not the problem. These are three of many devices that stem from the real issue: Industrial Technology.
Our species is about 2,000,000 years old; for most of it, we were nomadic hunter gatherers, with few exceptions. As such, our bodies and minds have evolved to meet the stressors placed on them by this way of life. There wasn't central government. The level of stress humans placed on their environment was akin to other top-level food chain members, and could easily be carried by the earth. The Neolithic revolution was some 10,000 years ago - fairly recent; though we had enough time to adjust that we're evolving to handle it, and it's not much of a problem. However, just 200 years ago, (a blink of an eye), the industrial revolution introduced new types of stress that humans had never seen before.
Depression, cancer, overpopulation, listlessness, obesity, all of these problems stem from our inability to evolve as quickly as our environments do. These laissez-faire folks pushing "technological/economic development/progress" are the problem. They strive for growth upon growth upon growth, never considering the human or environmental connotations, and the results have been devastating. Look around at the world.
As such, I advocate for revolution against the technological-industrial system, which may or may not make use of violence. We've reached this point, and it's our jobs to examine where we are today, and destroy the means of production beyond repair, offering no alternative other than nature. If we fail to act now, the system will continue to grow, permanently reducing humans and all other organisms into engineered products, unable to function without technology. Nature as we know it will cease to exist -perhaps not immediately, but sooner than we'd think.
DubV134
Active member
your words are less than impressive and the quotes you have selected to plagiarize make it clear that you are a sheep - no real concept of the world, simply following others and making annoying noise. your ignorance in these particular lines is exaggerated. means of production are shared all the time, and on a very large scale. if you have bought steak, or ground beef, or any meat product from the grocery store (except OscarMyer, Boars Head, etc.) it almost certainly was sourced from a processing factory which serves multiple farmers. similar situation for produce.
JohnLemieux was correct all producers are consumers. if you disbelieve that you are too shallow to recognize the interdependence of a developed economy. so shut the fuck up with this wanna be political talk, maybe you learned a thing or two in polysci but not enough (or maybe you just ripped everything off the web i dunno)
JohnLemieux was correct all producers are consumers. if you disbelieve that you are too shallow to recognize the interdependence of a developed economy. so shut the fuck up with this wanna be political talk, maybe you learned a thing or two in polysci but not enough (or maybe you just ripped everything off the web i dunno)
EastCoast315
Active member
Damn, no love for Homo Erectus?
haha, my bad
haha, my bad
elemeno89
Active member
Don't worry bud. I won't vote for Obama because he's black or that he'll give me more welfare money. I'm going to vote for him because he is a better candidate outright. He has spoken about overturning CISPA, not banning gay marriage, being responsible for rebuilding our economy into a state of which it hasn't been sing late 2008, and ending unnecessary conflicts such as Iraq.
I'm not writing this to say hes better, this is just my personal opinion and the way you vote has not impact on my life directly. But to write about one of the three "touchy subjects" forcing your opinion on others is wrong, and ultimately unnecessary.
Thanks you and good night bud.
I'm not writing this to say hes better, this is just my personal opinion and the way you vote has not impact on my life directly. But to write about one of the three "touchy subjects" forcing your opinion on others is wrong, and ultimately unnecessary.
Thanks you and good night bud.
Campeador
Active member
Hahaha
Nevermind! Compared to this nonsense even the Noam Chomsky anarcho-syndicalism I thought you were defending seems rational.
This is by far one of the most ridiculous things I think I've ever read in my life. Perhaps we should go back to a feudal subsistence farming based economy. Or maybe go back even further into the paleolithic lifestyle, so trendy right now. Maybe you should move to the forest and do just that, there's still plenty of nature left for you to get lost and never be found again, I'm sure no one would miss you.
Nevermind! Compared to this nonsense even the Noam Chomsky anarcho-syndicalism I thought you were defending seems rational.
This is by far one of the most ridiculous things I think I've ever read in my life. Perhaps we should go back to a feudal subsistence farming based economy. Or maybe go back even further into the paleolithic lifestyle, so trendy right now. Maybe you should move to the forest and do just that, there's still plenty of nature left for you to get lost and never be found again, I'm sure no one would miss you.
EastCoast315
Active member
Ad hominem status achieved.
Campeador
Active member
Whatever you say man, your views are so absurd that they hardly merit any discussion. Your idiotic views are completely unrealizable, and frankly, ridiculous. "Destroying the means of production"? Please elaborate upon that. If you want to go back to living off nature, go get lost in the Amazon or Papua New Guinea, there's still plenty of tribal peoples doing just that. Don't be hypocrite now, that computer you're typing on is a result of modern "means of production", time to destroy it.
I can at least somewhat debate anarchists like lemieux or socialists like mike-o, however, you're on the same level as that ancient aliens guy.
I can at least somewhat debate anarchists like lemieux or socialists like mike-o, however, you're on the same level as that ancient aliens guy.
EastCoast315
Active member
What was humanity before the industrial revolution? By destroying the pillars on which the technoindustrial system relies (electrical grid, freight transport, industrial agriculture, etc.), we could easily reach that point again after a long and unstable period of adjustment. It would simply take a bit of organization from a small segment of the population.
Why wave the flag of advancement when ultimately it will result in the total stripping away of human dignity and autonomy? There will come a time when we are so reliant on the large-scale systematic use of technology that we will be unable to function without its help. We are already dangerously close to that point. Why should human achievement be so pompous as it think it can accurately substitute the likes of nature? To me, THAT is the only thing that's absurd about this.
Why wave the flag of advancement when ultimately it will result in the total stripping away of human dignity and autonomy? There will come a time when we are so reliant on the large-scale systematic use of technology that we will be unable to function without its help. We are already dangerously close to that point. Why should human achievement be so pompous as it think it can accurately substitute the likes of nature? To me, THAT is the only thing that's absurd about this.
DADDYlongLEGS
Active member
A time when we are unable to function without technology passed a long time ago. Dismantling this system will cause billions of people to die.
Why is this a better alternative than "business as usual" or making smaller changes?
I doubt many people would prefer "dignity and autonomy" to food and water.
Why is this a better alternative than "business as usual" or making smaller changes?
I doubt many people would prefer "dignity and autonomy" to food and water.