Protests in NYC!!!

lifegoesonbrah

Well-Known Member
you're dealing with a racist clown who thinks that the john birch society represents the REAL AMERICA (yes, he capitalized it) and protects THE REAL AMERICA from the cesspool of multiculturalism.

his idea is that multiculturalism is really just leftist code for making us all basically hitler youth of "a singular mindset" (yes, he actually says these things).

he just types because he likes to hear the sound of his keyboard. he's a fucking idiot beyond compare.

If A, then Racist
If not B, then Racist
If A or B, then Racist
If A and B, then Racist
 

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
I think it is more because you have failed to really differentiate your political theories from that of the tried and failed. Until you Noam Chomsky's stop hiding behind fancy pants words and 19th century definitions and actually add some substance to what you believe to be your political philosophy, we will continue to lump you in with the standard Marxist.
If you're genuinely interested in learning about anarchy, I can suggest some good books. From what I have seen, you are simply looking for some morsel you can quote out of context to discredit anarchy in favor of feudalism thinly veiled as "voluntaryism".

You seek to discredit an entire philosophy that you know (as you have admitted) nearly nothing about and I can only describe that as openly ignorant for the sake of ignorance. You obviously have only resorted to this as a result of your own philosophies being shattered by anarchists who know more about your philosophy than you do, having previously been awed but then disillusioned with the current "libertarianism". To insist that a well established and internationally developed philosophy such as anarchy is vague, because those of us who have read enough long winded and complex arguments (books), refuse to hand walk you through a cliff notes for dummies version that your little mind can comprehend, is simply asinine. Nobody owes you anything actually.
 

Nutes and Nugs

Well-Known Member
I don't understand why mostly democrats organize and participate in protests.
They want more government and law but they turn around and oppose the laws after they are passed.
It wasnt until a few years ago a law was passed to let cops shoot anyone who points a gun at them.
Now you bitch about it.
Wait until ObamaCare starts fining or putting people in jail.
Sure enough, there's going to be a protest.
 

GOD HERE

Well-Known Member
I don't understand why mostly democrats organize and participate in protests.
They want more government and law but they turn around and oppose the laws after they are passed.
It wasnt until a few years ago a law was passed to let cops shoot anyone who points a gun at them.
Now you bitch about it.
Wait until ObamaCare starts fining or putting people in jail.
Sure enough, there's going to be a protest.
Yeah tell us how mad you are about Obamacare
Teabagger_TownHall.jpg
 

lifegoesonbrah

Well-Known Member
If you're genuinely interested in learning about anarchy, I can suggest some good books. From what I have seen, you are simply looking for some morsel you can quote out of context to discredit anarchy in favor of feudalism thinly veiled as "voluntaryism".

You seek to discredit an entire philosophy that you know (as you have admitted) nearly nothing about and I can only describe that as openly ignorant for the sake of ignorance. You obviously have only resorted to this as a result of your own philosophies being shattered by anarchists who know more about your philosophy than you do, having previously been awed but then disillusioned with the current "libertarianism". To insist that a well established and internationally developed philosophy such as anarchy is vague, because those of us who have read enough long winded and complex arguments (books), refuse to hand walk you through a cliff notes for dummies version that your little mind can comprehend, is simply asinine. Nobody owes you anything actually.
Standard fake anarchist response with just insults and no explanation yet again. I have listened to enough Chomsky to make me want to kill myself, yet I post threads inquiring about his positions and no fake anarchists to be found. Chomsky babbles on about how economist would be most resistant to his philosophy, which is true because the most basic fundamentals show that free market capitalism arises out of an anarchist society. You say that nobody can own means of production, but fail to realize that people will do so unless coerced by some sort of government, preferably for a fake anarchist is a direct democracy. The backbone of Anarchism is spontaneous order, not rule by the majority and forceful means of limiting ones abilities to produce their own goods and enter into a mutual contract with an employee (proletariat, your welcome). You want a controlled economy, not anarchism. Nothing new, your ideas are old and have failed. You will now post a response that explains nothing and start babbling on about how you can't own mother earth.

You post some funny pictures though, brah.
 

lifegoesonbrah

Well-Known Member
I don't understand why mostly democrats organize and participate in protests.
They want more government and law but they turn around and oppose the laws after they are passed.
It wasnt until a few years ago a law was passed to let cops shoot anyone who points a gun at them.
Now you bitch about it.
Wait until ObamaCare starts fining or putting people in jail.
Sure enough, there's going to be a protest.

There is nothing sadder than a liberal supporting the power of the federal government, then having a war protest the next day. So much fail.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
If A, then Racist
If not B, then Racist
If A or B, then Racist
If A and B, then Racist
miss kynes called desegregation "forced multiculturalism".

miss kynes has talked about the inferiority of polynesians and africans to europeans.

i've probably forgotten half of the more racist stuff he's said.

dude is a racist through and through, and i'm just making sure people who read this thread know it.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
There is nothing sadder than a liberal supporting the power of the federal government, then having a war protest the next day. So much fail.
i support the federal government stepping in when it is necessary, such as to put an end to states doing unconstitutional things like segregation (or, as rawn pawl called it in the ames, iowa debate, a mere "bad thing", not unconstitutional despite SCOTUS ruling to the contrary. fucking idiot).

i do not support the federal government stepping in when it is not necessary, such as a war of choice in iraq that did not need to happen.

there is a huge difference between the two and absolutely nothing inconsistent about it.

good job on supporting a racist old coot who doesn't understand how the constitution works though.
 

fb360

Active Member
You feeling okay? Hearing any voices or anything like that? You seem a little disconnected from reality...
Oh my lanta. The mother fuckin irony.
You mean disconnected like believing you can have socialism between 300million individuals without a governing body?
 

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
I post threads inquiring about his positions and no fake anarchists to be found.
You have your mind made up then.

Feudalism means the same as anarchy to you. Land lords and wage slaves.

The following syllogism is a sound deductive argument:
Voluntaryism is synonymous with anarchocapitalism. Anarchocapitalism is an oxymoron. You are a voluntaryist calling a libertarian socialist "fake anarchist" because I didn't humor your hate boner for Noam Chomsky. You're therefore...
 

lifegoesonbrah

Well-Known Member
miss kynes called desegregation "forced multiculturalism".
Well, government decided that businesses and government could no longer segregate. If they did, they would be forced to stop doing so. What is that called? I'm not defending segregation, just stating facts. You advocate for policies that forcefully segregate, allowing minorities to have increased benefits over others, morally is that any better? Practically it is better, but morally it is the same but with good intentions.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Well, government decided that businesses and government could no longer segregate. If they did, they would be forced to stop doing so. What is that called?
forced desegregation.

edit: you might also call it "doing what the constitution dictates"

I'm not defending segregation, just stating facts. You advocate for policies that forcefully segregate, allowing minorities to have increased benefits over others, morally is that any better? Practically it is better, but morally it is the same but with good intentions.
the after school tutoring program was voluntary. no one was forced to participate.

if you want to get into the morality of fixing what we broke, that is a whole 'nother thread.
 

lifegoesonbrah

Well-Known Member
You have your mind made up then.

Feudalism means the same as anarchy to you. Land lords and wage slaves.

The following syllogism is a sound deductive argument:
Voluntaryism is synonymous with anarchocapitalism. Anarchocapitalism is an oxymoron. You are a voluntaryist calling a libertarian socialist "fake anarchist" because I didn't humor your hate boner for Noam Chomsky. You're therefore...

No, unlike feudalism I support class mobility. Anybody can own means of production, there aren't forced hereditary classes in a free capitalist society. Does your philosophy support coercion to limit individuals to obtain means of production? Since you won't answer, I have to conclude that it will because you cannot voluntarily enforce limitations on acquiring means of production. Therefore, your philosophy requires force which is fundamentally opposed to Anarchism.
 

lifegoesonbrah

Well-Known Member
the after school tutoring program was voluntary. no one was forced to participate.
How is that different from businesses segregating? Nobody forces you to go to the shitty racist restaurant therefore it is okay right? I personally would not eat hamburgers made from racists, because more than likely they are too dumb to cook it properly. Just like someone who makes a blacks only tutoring program, they are probably too dumb to be teaching anybody anything.
 

lifegoesonbrah

Well-Known Member
not forced, but de facto. and getting worse.
Because of government favoritism that you liberals shout about so much. If it was a free market then we wouldn't have this problem. Those Wallstreet banksters we all love to hate are propped up by government intervention in the markets.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
How is that different from businesses segregating? Nobody forces you to go to the shitty racist restaurant therefore it is okay right?
what if these practices were so widespread that you needed a book to tell you which hotels would give you a room, or which restaurants would let you eat there, or which gas stations would sell you gas at the regular price instead of double?

this is why we have title II. you can't call yourself "open to the public" and then deny (certain segments of) the public. why? because it causes harm to others. very simple.

the constitution lets you swing your fist up to the point of my face.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Because of government favoritism that you liberals shout about so much. If it was a free market then we wouldn't have this problem. Those Wallstreet banksters we all love to hate are propped up by government intervention in the markets.
and the government is bought and paid for. want to help fix it? create a new lobby for the little guys.

it's too bad that the little guys don't have the financial clout to form that lobby though, eh?

it all started spiraling out of control starting with reagan, in case you didn't notice.

it's easier to prevent a plutocracy than it is to remove one.
 
Top