Maryland police ready to investigate kavanaugh for rape

Buddha2525 said:

You make life too complicated, along with most people. Namo Amituofo is all you need to get grounded in reality. That's it. If everyone realized that we'd get along without conflict.

These are just pixels on a screen, but to many like you here, seem to think they constitute the whole of that person. They're instead only mere shadows of something you must first realize on your own.

The point of that essay is like a gong'an 公案 to promote thought within. You lack insight we all have problems everyone shares. Even if all those who are causing you oppression were white, which of course is a lie caused from paranoia, using terms like white privledge, check your privledge, and goading others into accepting their white guilt is nothing more than a child who gets angry that his more well off friend has what he has not.

You have every right to feel that way but we also have every right to tell you to STFU and grow up.

Instead act nicely and ask for help in a friendly manner without all the angsty anger of teenage emo white girl. All it does is make you look pathetic and no one will therefore take you seriously.

Click to expand...

White supremacist aren't ever nice and deserve nothing. Especially in light of your own vitriolic rhetoric. So cut the pity party. I'm willing to talk to you. Just be satisfied with that because most on this forum won't even do that.

Now then, the essay you posted about how cruel the US is. The author's thesis was waves of immigrants came to this country and faced horrendous discrimination. The next waves of immigrants were beat down by the earlier ones. So now we are an awful and cruel country which explains why don't have good healthcare.

It's not untrue but is a bit simple. Not exactly new thinking. Also ignored the situation in the South where involuntary immigrants, once freed, were held down through Jim Crow and Segregation. During that time, very few immigrants were interested in moving to Mississippi or Alabama. When the chidlren of involuntary immigrants could move away, they did so by the millions and found better lives elsewhere in the US.

I'll just point out one fact conveniently left out from the essay though there are many others. Those waves of immigrants who "faced cruelty" were mostly young people who were escaping TO the US in in order to get away from awful conditions. Also this country was free compared to what they left. If this country is so awful, why do so many want to move here?

Not saying that this isn't a cruel country, just saying the essay was simple and reality is more complex. The evidence your essayist presented used the treatment of immigrants as evidence of our cruelty without mentioning why people were motivated to move here in the first place. Just saying we have been a haven for those fleeing countries that are really truly awful. The writer, after falsely saying the US is cruel to the bone, just stopped there. As if we should all just kill ourselves now because we are unredeemable.

Switching gears, let's talk about your impracticality. We most certainly aren't going to just convert to a cooperative economy overnight as you seemed to say we should. That's a bit dizzy to say. Again, your argument is simple and childish.

Also, you say you want the entire system to crash down upon us or some such apocalyptic nonsense. Those are the desires of a person who is a loser in this society. Could we just not do that? I have kids and elder parents that I don't want to die along with the tens of millions that would die along with them. Not only that, because you have a soggy colon and are anti-social, you are likely to be extinguished too. Every person I've ever known who talked like that did so because they were losers and failures. In your post apocalyptic world those so-called "survivalists" would be just as much a loser. The problem is in themselves, not their society. And yes, I'm talking about you too.

zeddd said:

Why do you lie and spread disinformation in every post comrade?

Click to expand...

That's not a lie. Socialism started as a French philosophy of miniarchy to full on anarchism. It's very similar to what we now consider traditional libertarians, but the difference lies in socialists believe we can only achieve a truly individualist society through a collective effort, while the capitalist libertarian is batshit nuts believing in some sort of wild west utopia of the one with the most money can prey on those with the least money, such as the dystopian novel Atlas Shrugged.

Real socialiam is what was proposed by Pierre Proudhon which ,"shall prove beyond a doubt that property, to be just and possible, must necessarily have equality for its condition."

Neither capitalist libertarians nor statist socialists believe in true equality. They both believe private corporations are the way by either trickle down economics or coercive government interference, and the worker is the pawn who either way gets fucked up the ass.

Buddha2525 said:

That's not a lie. Socialism started as a French philosophy of miniarchy to full on anarchism. It's very similar to what we now consider traditional libertarians, but the difference lies in socialists believe we can only achieve a truly individualist society through a collective effort, while the capitalist libertarian is batshit nuts believing in some sort of wild west utopia of the one with the most money can prey on those with the least money, such as the dystopian novel Atlas Shrugged.

Real socialiam is what was proposed by Pierre Proudhon which ,"shall prove beyond a doubt that property, to be just and possible, must necessarily have equality for its condition."

Neither capitalist libertarians nor statist socialists believe in true equality. They both believe private corporations are the way by either trickle down economics or coercive government interference, and the worker is the pawn who either way gets fucked up the ass.

Click to expand...

Who can I vote for that supports your policies?

Fogdog said:

White supremacy isn't nice and deserves nothing. Especially in light of your own vitriolic rhetoric. So cut the pity party. I'm willing to talk to you. Just be satisfied with that because most on this forum won't even do that.

Now then, the essay you posted about how cruel the US is. The author's thesis was waves of immigrants came to this country and faced horrendous discrimination. The next waves of immigrants were beat down by the earlier ones. So now we are an awful and cruel country which explains why don't have good healthcare.

It's not untrue but is a bit simple. Not exactly new thinking. Also ignored the situation in the South where involuntary immigrants, once freed, were held down through Jim Crow and Segregation. During that time, very few immigrants were interested in moving to Mississippi or Alabama. When the chidlren of involuntary immigrants could move away, they did so by the millions and found better lives elsewhere in the US.

I'll just point out one fact conveniently left out from the essay though there are many others. Those waves of immigrants who "faced cruelty" were mostly young people who were escaping TO the US in in order to get away from awful conditions. Also this country was free compared to what they left. If this country is so awful, why do so many want to move here?

Not saying that this isn't a cruel country, just saying the essay was simple and reality is more complex. The evidence your essayist presented used the treatment of immigrants as evidence of our cruelty without mentioning why people were motivated to move here in the first place. Just saying we have been a haven for those fleeing countries that are really truly awful. The writer, after falsely saying the US is cruel to the bone, just stopped there. As if we should all just kill ourselves now because we are unredeemable.

Switching gears, let's talk about your impracticality. We most certainly aren't going to just convert to a cooperative economy overnight as you seemed to say we should. That's a bit dizzy to say. Again, your argument is simple and childish.

Also, you say you want the entire system to crash down upon us or some such apocalyptic nonsense. Those are the desires of a person who is a loser in this society. Could we just not do that? I have kids and elder parents that I don't want to die along with the tens of millions that would die along with them. Not only that, because you have a soggy colon and are anti-social, you are likely to be extinguished too. Every person I've ever known who talked that did so because they were losers and failures. In your post apocalyptic world those so "survivalists" would be just as much a loser. The problem is in themselves, not their society. And yes, I'm talking about you too.

Click to expand...

So your goal isn't to make all those with light complexion bow down in servitude and experience the cruelty you seem to believe you yourself experienced for the next 400 years so we can truly feel your pain? Because that's what I get from your diatribe of white priveledge. If that's the case, I'd rather take my chances in a Mad Max world than be your light skinned whoopin' boy.

Fogdog said:

Who can I vote for that supports your policies?

Click to expand...

That's the problem. Our current system doesn't support that. But it doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for such. If you told the founding fathers 230 years ago there'd be billionaire CEOs that included women and blacks, they'd have called you nuts back then too. Especially the part of a billionaire being possible.

We need to move away from voting and replace it with consensus.

Buddha2525 said:

So your goal isn't to make all those with light complexion bow down in servitude and experience the cruelty you seem to believe you yourself experienced for the next 400 years so we can truly feel your pain? Because that's what I get from your diatribe of white priveledge. If that's the case, I'd rather take my chances in a Mad Max world than be your light skinned whoopin' boy.

Click to expand...

See, now here is an example of you jumping to a false conclusion. No, my goal is not that.

You have digestive issues. You wouldn't last long without our medical and health system, as bad as it is. Your fantasy of rising above a tattered world is just that. You'd have no chance in that collapsing world. What your fantasy gives me is insight into just how fucked up your life is that you'd want to see tens of millions die because you are such a loser in the existing society. Every survivalist I've known was a loser. Like you, they thirsted for the apocalypse but I don't think they would succeed there either.

Buddha2525 said:

That's the problem. Our current system doesn't support that. But it doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for such. If you told the founding fathers 230 years ago there'd be billionaire CEOs that included women and blacks, they'd have called you nuts back then too. Especially the part of a billionaire being possible.

We need to move away from voting and replace it with consensus.

Click to expand...

I read that article about Mondragon cooperatives. It took 60 years for it to grow to the point where 60,000 workers were participants. You do realize this is a country with hundreds of millions of workers, don't you. It wasn't exactly a utopia and was showing signs of stress due to its size and age. It was also a tyranny of the majority and was forming into a class society. I think it might be part of a solution but hardly a good answer to all the world's problems, much less this country's problems. Not only that but most people in this country don't want to be part of a collective. Are you going to force re-education on them? Comrade?

We are going to stick with voting. Consensus sucks.

Fogdog said:

I read that article about Mondragon cooperatives. It took 60 years for it to grow to the point where 60,000 workers were participants. You do realize this is a country with hundreds of millions of workers, don't you. It wasn't exactly a utopia and was showing signs of stress due to its size and age. It was also a tyranny of the majority and was forming into a class society. I think it might be part of a solution but hardly a good answer to all the world's problems, much less this country's problems. Not only that but most people in this country don't want to be part of a collective. Are you going to force re-education on them? Comrade?

We are going to stick with voting. Consensus sucks.

Click to expand...

Do you even know what consensus is? What's your issue with it?

"Instead of voting a controversial plan up or down, groups that make decisions by consensus work to refine the plan until everyone finds it acceptable. A primer on the NYC General Assembly website, the structural expression of the Occupy movement, explains, “Consensus is a creative thinking process: When we vote, we decide between two alternatives. With consensus, we take an issue, hear the range of enthusiasm, ideas and concerns about it, and synthesize a proposal that best serves everybody’s vision.”"

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/05/consensus-occupy-wall-street-general-assembly/

Buddha2525 said:

That's not a lie. Socialism started as a French philosophy of miniarchy to full on anarchism. It's very similar to what we now consider traditional libertarians, but the difference lies in socialists believe we can only achieve a truly individualist society through a collective effort, while the capitalist libertarian is batshit nuts believing in some sort of wild west utopia of the one with the most money can prey on those with the least money, such as the dystopian novel Atlas Shrugged.

Real socialiam is what was proposed by Pierre Proudhon which ,"shall prove beyond a doubt that property, to be just and possible, must necessarily have equality for its condition."

Neither capitalist libertarians nor statist socialists believe in true equality. They both believe private corporations are the way by either trickle down economics or coercive government interference, and the worker is the pawn who either way gets fucked up the ass.

Click to expand...

Lol how can you discuss Marxism without mentioning Dialectic materialism or Hegel, I’d give you an F for that essay.
Do you have any thoughts on Darwin’s TOE?

Buddha2525 said:

Do you even know what consensus is? What's your issue with it?

"Instead of voting a controversial plan up or down, groups that make decisions by consensus work to refine the plan until everyone finds it acceptable. A primer on the NYC General Assembly website, the structural expression of the Occupy movement, explains, “Consensus is a creative thinking process: When we vote, we decide between two alternatives. With consensus, we take an issue, hear the range of enthusiasm, ideas and concerns about it, and synthesize a proposal that best serves everybody’s vision.”"

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/05/consensus-occupy-wall-street-general-assembly/

Click to expand...

Consensus works maybe in a group of 10 people. There are very good reasons why votes by secret ballot are better. Are you entirely ignorant of history? Wasn't it you who said that ancient Rome was communist? Oh, that's right you are:

Buddha2525 said:

Communism is a Roman idea,, and why their empire fell. They tried buying off loyalty and didn't have the resources to keep up. Which is the exact same thing the US is falling into with our global Team America.imperialism, converting "uncivilized" nations to our stanfard of democracyTM we ourselves don't even follow. And not minding our own business.

Click to expand...

So, yes, you are ignorant of history.


Why no revisiting your idiot's play of pulling up an essayists condemnation of the entire country based upon a false premise? You are all over the map boy.

zeddd said:

Lol how can you discuss Marxism without mentioning Dialectic materialism or Hegel, I’d give you an F for that essay.
Do you have any thoughts on Darwin’s TOE?

Click to expand...

Hegel was a long winded idiot that not even Hegel himself understood. Germans read Hegel in English because that's the only way anyone can understand what he infers, and that's just a guess too.

Proudhon isn't a Marxist and published his theories almost a decade before Marx.

I'm not a Darwinist survival of the fittest guy, his theory is garbage. Science has already proven even animals develop altruism, like how rats will wrestle and the strong let the weaker win a certain percentage or else no one will play if he always wins. Darwin knew nothing about such behavior and was only recently discovered humans aren't the only ones to make use of socialist ideals.

Fogdog said:

Consensus works maybe in a group of 10 people. There are very good reasons why votes by secret ballot are better. Are you entirely ignorant of history? Wasn't it you who said that ancient Rome was communist? Oh, that's right you are:


So, yes, you are ignorant of history.


Why no revisiting your idiot's play of pulling up an essayists condemnation of the entire country based upon a false premise? You are all over the map boy.

Click to expand...

Panem et circenses and globalization colonialism without the means to even support that were attemps at a proto-socialist communism agenda of universal income and monoculturalism which are hallmarks of Marxism. Just like the USSR failed too before being able to attain that unattainable dream too.

Buddha2525 said:

Panem et circenses and globalization colonialism without the means to even support that were attemps at a proto-socialist communism agenda of universal income and monoculturalism which are hallmarks of Marxism. Just like the USSR failed too before being able to attain that unattainable dream too.

Click to expand...

Because you say so.

Nope. Rome was a self styled Republic and later an Imperial empire. Not ever not even close to Communist along the ideas of Marx. Mars, maybe. The dole of grain given to the very few citizens of Rome hardly makes them communist.

Oh and the vote vs consensus. This is why I referred to your ridiculous claim that Rome was communist. (oh god that's funny) About fifty or hundred years before Julius Caesar, a movement that would have included the secret ballot along with land reform was defeated in a bloody coup perpetrated by the Roman patrician class. Reasoning behind implementing a secret ballot was the open ballot was watched carefully by patricians who would punish plebians under their control if they voted against their wishes. Patricians maintained power by keeping their plebeians within their patriarchy voting in a single block. Also, many were landlords who held power through intimidating tenants to vote their way. Ruling by consensus in a large society would be subject to the same power struggle. Consensus is a great organizing tool for small groups but history shows the secret ballot is necessary to prevent coercion by powerful people.

Fogdog said:

Because you say so.

Nope. Rome was a self styled Republic and later an Imperial empire. Not ever not even close to Communist along the ideas of Marx. Mars, maybe. The dole of grain given to the very few citizens of Rome hardly makes them communist.

Oh and the vote vs consensus. This is why I referred to your ridiculous claim that Rome was communist. (oh god that's funny) About fifty or hundred years before Julius Caesar, a movement that would have included the secret ballot along with land reform was defeated in a bloody coup perpetrated by the Roman patrician class. Reasoning behind implementing a secret ballot was the open ballot was watched carefully by patricians who would punish plebians under their control if they voted against their wishes. Patricians maintained power by keeping their plebeians within their patriarchy voting in a single block. Also, many were landlords who held power through intimidating tenants to vote their way. Ruling by consensus in a large society would be subject to the same power struggle. Consensus is a great organizing tool for small groups but history shows the secret ballot is necessary to prevent coercion by powerful people.

Click to expand...

If openness is so horrible, why are open source operating systems like Linux and BSD so much more secure than closed source solutions like Windows? Wikileaks also proved how Obama was a lying sack of shit when he said the government wasn't tapping phones without warrants.

The more open government the less susceptible it is to corruption. Russia and China are very corrupt and also very closed in their decision making process.

Scandinavian countries are amoung the most open and also the least corrupt.

Buddha2525 said:

If openness is so horrible, why are open source operating systems like Linux and BSD so much more secure than closed source solutions like Windows? Wikileaks also proved how Obama was a lying sack of shit when he said the government wasn't tapping phones without warrants.

The more open government the less susceptible it is to corruption. Russia and China are very corrupt and also very closed in their decision making process.

Scandinavian countries are amoung the most open and also the least corrupt.

Click to expand...

No one likes you

Buddha2525 said:

If openness is so horrible, why are open source operating systems like Linux and BSD so much more secure than closed source solutions like Windows? Wikileaks also proved how Obama was a lying sack of shit when he said the government wasn't tapping phones without warrants.

The more open government the less susceptible it is to corruption. Russia and China are very corrupt and also very closed in their decision making process.

Scandinavian countries are amoung the most open and also the least corrupt.

Click to expand...

This has what to do with your poor recounting of history?

Now then, consensus. What did I just say about why government by consensus is a bad idea for large societies? I said that the reason secret ballots are used is to prevent powerful people from coercing votes from people they have power over. Votes taken with public knowledge of how people voted are subject to coercion according to the wishes of men with power. This has happened time and again since the time of Ancient Greece. You answer consensus is good "because open software", Russia and China. LOL.

Just agree that I'm right and find something else to disagree with me about.

Buddha2525 said:

why are open source operating systems like Linux and BSD so much more secure than closed source solutions like Windows?

Click to expand...

how many billions of people use windows? how many billions use Linux? why hack a system that hardly anybody uses.

rkymtnman said:

how many billions of people use windows? how many billions use Linux? why hack a system that hardly anybody uses.

Click to expand...

Linux has plenty of commercial IT applications whereas windows is a crappy operating system that runs pcs. It's an apples and oranges comparison.

The suggestion that because Linux we should make everybody's votes public is stupid.

Fogdog said:

Linux has plenty of commercial IT applications

Click to expand...

did not know that. i thought it was mainly nerds that didnt' want to make Gates any richer.

Man is this guy dirty.