Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Socialist)   The left have convinced themselves of fiction that Obama is the only chance they have for real social change. Of course, BSABSVR, so vote Obama anyways   (socialistworker.org ) divider line
    More: Obvious, obama, Mayor Rahm Emanuel, SDS, Wall Street protests, fictions, Lyndon B. Johnson, historiographies  
•       •       •

1097 clicks; posted to Politics » on 29 Oct 2012 at 8:14 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



207 Comments   (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-29 11:18:36 AM  

kpaxoid: I believe this is called tearing off your nose to spite your face?


No, it's called hastening the crisis of capitalism.

Orthodox Marxism holds that the inherent contradictions of capitalism will lead to its collapse. For example, if wages are kept at subsistence levels, who will buy what manufacturers make? That unregulated capitalism leads to crises was proven repeatedly during the Panics of 1877, 1893 and the Depression.

Therefore, it follows that a Romney victory would be a good thing for Communism, since by hastening the crisis of capitalism, the masses would be forced out of desperation to rise up against the capitalist system and smash it, bringing about the socialist millennium,.

The historic error of Marxist rhetoric on the results of the crisis of capitalism is that no communist state arose from such a crisis, unless it was aided by foreign conquest or the destruction of war. The Japanese and German responses to such a collapse were the installation of fascist, racist states. The Russian response was the May Revolution in 1917, and that was assisted by a nation thoroughly sick of participation in World War I. In Greece, Golden Dawn is on the rise, complete with quasi-swastika.

The criticism by America's center-left of this model is that such a crisis causes great human suffering. The crisis of capitalism necessarily brings about massive unemployment, plummeting wages, hunger and homelessness. The historical example is that such a crisis leads to the rise of the authoritarian Right.
 
2012-10-29 11:25:57 AM  
vygramul
If you're looking for a progressive revolution, you're not going to get it from even the most progressive of pregressivey presidents. Not without supermajority PROGRESSIVES in the Senate and majority PROGRESSIVES in congress.

i.telegraph.co.uk

So now it's gone from "Elect Democrats" to "Elect the right Democrats".

Do you have any idea how the Democratic Party works? The place to elect "better" Democrats without letting Teh Republicans win is the primaries. Remember what the Democrats told the progressives when they thought about primarying Obama? In every election, when there's a suggestion to primary a Blue Dog, the Party works hard to defeat it. Our local Blue Dog has never seen a primary challenge top 10%, because the Party is, first and foremost, a patronage system. No one in the Party apparatus wants to be on the losing side, because then they can say goodbye to future employment, leadership positions, or approval to run for office.

There is no reforming the Democratic Party from within. There were very large attempts to try it around 2006 and they were defeated.

Even aside from that, we elected the Democrats to majorities in both parts of Congress in 2006 on the belief that they would stop approving funding for the war, which was totally in their power. They did not. fark 'em.

As for Obama being the progressiviest president to ever progressive a progress, I agree. And yet his presidency is wholly insufficient. Which means that if we want real change it will never come through the electoral political system.

Just to be clear, I don't think I've ever said "don't vote". I don't care if you vote, because I don't think it matters. Vote, if you must- but if that's all you do, you're doing nothing.

If Obama is lukewarm change, you can't then argue Clinton wasn't part of the damage.

I know that; I want to know if HeartBurnKid is admitting it.
 
2012-10-29 11:27:17 AM  

PonceAlyosha: machoprogrammer: That is why I laugh ass off when people say Obama makes CEOs accountable.

Wouldn't someone have to say that first?


A few weeks ago, there was a Samual L Jackson video called "Wake the fark up" linked on Fark. In the video, he said that in response to a kid saying "They are all the same" and all the Fark Democrat fan club were saying how much of a hero Jackson was and how he was speaking the truth. So yes, people say it.
 
2012-10-29 11:31:11 AM  

RanDomino: HeartBurnKid
You think 6 or 7 years is enough to undo 30 years of damage?

Are you saying Clinton was part of the damage?


Of course he was. Glass-Steagall got repealed on his watch.
 
2012-10-29 11:32:02 AM  
Yamaneko2
Therefore, it follows that a Romney victory would be a good thing for Communism, since by hastening the crisis of capitalism, the masses would be forced out of desperation to rise up against the capitalist system and smash it, bringing about the socialist millennium,.

The historic error of Marxist rhetoric on the results of the crisis of capitalism is that no communist state arose from such a crisis, unless it was aided by foreign conquest or the destruction of war. The Japanese and German responses to such a collapse were the installation of fascist, racist states. The Russian response was the May Revolution in 1917, and that was assisted by a nation thoroughly sick of participation in World War I. In Greece, Golden Dawn is on the rise, complete with quasi-swastika.


This. The Marxists seem to think that the people just spontaneously rise up. It's bullshiat; what happens is that years of on-the-ground organizing and activism create a base which people decide to join when it's clear the old system is no longer working. That's why what Golden Dawn is doing is so effective and so dangerous- by being a protection and social services organization, they're building credibility. Meanwhile the Communists are content to sit back and think they're going to win by default (as you said) and the Anarchists seem to be stretched too thin by street-fighting without creating the social/economic base necessary to sustain it.
 
2012-10-29 11:33:10 AM  

machoprogrammer: PonceAlyosha: machoprogrammer: That is why I laugh ass off when people say Obama makes CEOs accountable.

Wouldn't someone have to say that first?

A few weeks ago, there was a Samual L Jackson video called "Wake the fark up" linked on Fark. In the video, he said that in response to a kid saying "They are all the same" and all the Fark Democrat fan club were saying how much of a hero Jackson was and how he was speaking the truth. So yes, people say it.


That doesn't follow at all. Saying "not all politicians are the same" does not imply anything about their views on CEO compensation or reigning in corporate power. You're desperate.
 
2012-10-29 11:33:23 AM  

RanDomino: This is not an 'intermediate goal'. It's a compromise. A substitution. A way for them to say, "Shut up and be happy you got anything at all." Many people have said that this is a "stepping stone" but not one has yet said HOW it will lead to universal healthcare. Not even a dumb plan- I haven't heard any plan at all! The consistency of the "stepping stone" excuse, and lack of depth, leads me to believe that it's just a Democratic Party talking point, which apparatchiks like yourself like to spew because it lets you sound right.


Ah. So not only are you impatient, you think anybody who takes a longer view is an "apparatchik".

Oh, to be young, dumb, and full of cum again.
 
2012-10-29 11:37:30 AM  

HeartBurnKid: RanDomino: This is not an 'intermediate goal'. It's a compromise. A substitution. A way for them to say, "Shut up and be happy you got anything at all." Many people have said that this is a "stepping stone" but not one has yet said HOW it will lead to universal healthcare. Not even a dumb plan- I haven't heard any plan at all! The consistency of the "stepping stone" excuse, and lack of depth, leads me to believe that it's just a Democratic Party talking point, which apparatchiks like yourself like to spew because it lets you sound right.

Ah. So not only are you impatient, you think anybody who takes a longer view is an "apparatchik".

Oh, to be young, dumb, and full of cum again.


YOU think you're taking the 'longer view'?!?
 
2012-10-29 11:39:15 AM  

TheOther: HeartBurnKid: RanDomino: This is not an 'intermediate goal'. It's a compromise. A substitution. A way for them to say, "Shut up and be happy you got anything at all." Many people have said that this is a "stepping stone" but not one has yet said HOW it will lead to universal healthcare. Not even a dumb plan- I haven't heard any plan at all! The consistency of the "stepping stone" excuse, and lack of depth, leads me to believe that it's just a Democratic Party talking point, which apparatchiks like yourself like to spew because it lets you sound right.

Ah. So not only are you impatient, you think anybody who takes a longer view is an "apparatchik".

Oh, to be young, dumb, and full of cum again.

YOU think you're taking the 'longer view'?!?


Sure am. I'm not the one going on about "But I want social change NOW! NOW NOW NOW!"
 
2012-10-29 11:46:44 AM  
HeartBurnKid
Ah. So not only are you impatient, you think anybody who takes a longer view is an "apparatchik".

Anybody who prioritizes the Party over any humanist principles or goals is an apparatchik.

Sure am. I'm not the one going on about "But I want social change NOW! NOW NOW NOW!"

Your strategy leads to change never. There has been no progress in years (decades even, it you want to talk about the '70s- or the '60s or '30s, when change was driven by groups acting outside the political system, forcing the Democrats to offer compromises just to destroy our momentum), and the path you suggest is totally controlled by people that despise us and everything we stand for. This is a stupid plan, and your only goal is to channel outrage and desire for change into uncritically supporting The Party.
 
2012-10-29 11:47:01 AM  

RanDomino: The anti-war and anti-Walker movements failed because they were channeled into electoral politics. Occupy failed because it didn't have another good direction after refusing to be channeled into electoral politics, which is still a step in the right direction. If Occupy could even be said to have 'failed' considering the number of projects and networks it's spawned.


It's a step with no direction. You cannot do politics simply on the basis of what you are against. What have those projects and networks done over the past year? Or what are they planning to do in the coming year (do radicals in America keep a low profile during and election year to avoid frightening the horses?)
 
2012-10-29 11:49:53 AM  

RanDomino: HeartBurnKid
Ah. So not only are you impatient, you think anybody who takes a longer view is an "apparatchik".

Anybody who prioritizes the Party over any humanist principles or goals is an apparatchik.

Sure am. I'm not the one going on about "But I want social change NOW! NOW NOW NOW!"

Your strategy leads to change never. There has been no progress in years (decades even, it you want to talk about the '70s- or the '60s or '30s, when change was driven by groups acting outside the political system, forcing the Democrats to offer compromises just to destroy our momentum), and the path you suggest is totally controlled by people that despise us and everything we stand for. This is a stupid plan, and your only goal is to channel outrage and desire for change into uncritically supporting The Party.


Tell us , what do you stand for, and how do you propose to bring it about.
 
2012-10-29 11:54:05 AM  

RanDomino: Your strategy leads to change never.


So does yours.
 
2012-10-29 12:01:16 PM  

RanDomino: Your strategy leads to change never. There has been no progress in years (decades even, it you want to talk about the '70s- or the '60s or '30s, when change was driven by groups acting outside the political system, forcing the Democrats to offer compromises just to destroy our momentum), and the path you suggest is totally controlled by people that despise us and everything we stand for. This is a stupid plan, and your only goal is to channel outrage and desire for change into uncritically supporting The Party.


Those groups had a coherent alternative vision, a programme to implement it, and even a working example. Say what you will about the Soviet Union, but its existence, and its economic success before the stagnation set in in the 1970s (yes, you read that correctly) scared the shiat out of western elites. That's what forced them to give up those compromises. While the decay and collapse of the USSR correlates pretty closely to retrenchment in the west.
 
2012-10-29 12:06:12 PM  

PonceAlyosha: machoprogrammer: PonceAlyosha: machoprogrammer: That is why I laugh ass off when people say Obama makes CEOs accountable.

Wouldn't someone have to say that first?

A few weeks ago, there was a Samual L Jackson video called "Wake the fark up" linked on Fark. In the video, he said that in response to a kid saying "They are all the same" and all the Fark Democrat fan club were saying how much of a hero Jackson was and how he was speaking the truth. So yes, people say it.

That doesn't follow at all. Saying "not all politicians are the same" does not imply anything about their views on CEO compensation or reigning in corporate power. You're desperate.


That was Mr. Jackson's response to the kid saying it... I shiat you not. So yes, people do indeed say that Obama is "holding CEOs accountable". So no, I am not desperate and I agree he didn't even refute the kids argument.
 
2012-10-29 12:10:19 PM  

machoprogrammer: PonceAlyosha: machoprogrammer: PonceAlyosha: machoprogrammer: That is why I laugh ass off when people say Obama makes CEOs accountable.

Wouldn't someone have to say that first?

A few weeks ago, there was a Samual L Jackson video called "Wake the fark up" linked on Fark. In the video, he said that in response to a kid saying "They are all the same" and all the Fark Democrat fan club were saying how much of a hero Jackson was and how he was speaking the truth. So yes, people say it.

That doesn't follow at all. Saying "not all politicians are the same" does not imply anything about their views on CEO compensation or reigning in corporate power. You're desperate.

That was Mr. Jackson's response to the kid saying it... I shiat you not. So yes, people do indeed say that Obama is "holding CEOs accountable". So no, I am not desperate and I agree he didn't even refute the kids argument.


Actually, I am thinking of a different ad. I just re-watched it. Trying to find the one where the person said that. My bad.
 
2012-10-29 12:10:53 PM  

RanDomino: vygramul
If you're looking for a progressive revolution, you're not going to get it from even the most progressive of pregressivey presidents. Not without supermajority PROGRESSIVES in the Senate and majority PROGRESSIVES in congress.

[i.telegraph.co.uk image 290x180]

So now it's gone from "Elect Democrats" to "Elect the right Democrats".


No, I didn't say that. Had congress been full of Bernie Sanders', Obama could have instituted far greater reforms and closed Gitmo. And Sanders isn't a Democrat. So I said nothing of the sort. I didn't move the goalposts at all and you should stop being a dick and try keeping up. If you paid attention, you would have seen that the implication is that even a progressive president would be hampered by the Democrats (not to mention Republicans).

Do you have any idea how the Democratic Party works? The place to elect "better" Democrats without letting Teh Republicans win is the primaries. Remember what the Democrats told the progressives when they thought about primarying Obama? In every election, when there's a suggestion to primary a Blue Dog, the Party works hard to defeat it. Our local Blue Dog has never seen a primary challenge top 10%, because the Party is, first and foremost, a patronage system. No one in the Party apparatus wants to be on the losing side, because then they can say goodbye to future employment, leadership positions, or approval to run for office.

My experience is that "patronage" is far too noble a word. It's more like high school with cliques and cool people and bullies and the bullied. "Patronage" implies far more loyalty.

There is no reforming the Democratic Party from within. There were very large attempts to try it around 2006 and they were defeated.

If the Tea Party can reform the GOP, then it's not impossible for the Democratic Party. The problem is largely because there are two types of people who join political parties: the narcissists and the true believers. Narcissists want to win office. True believers want to win ideological wars. The Narcissists tend to be the bullies who form cliques and shut down true believers out of fear the public won't vote for the narcissists when they run for office.

Even aside from that, we elected the Democrats to majorities in both parts of Congress in 2006 on the belief that they would stop approving funding for the war, which was totally in their power. They did not. fark 'em.

Partly, it's because things aren't that simple, and partly because office-holders are cowards. All of them want another term. They all vote in ways not to offend their constituents. What moderates don't understand is that it won't save them. Lincoln Chaffee (R-RI) didn't internalize that when he voted against the war and was rewarded with being kicked out of the Senate, and all those Democrats who voted against health care reform didn't learn that when they all got booted in the Republican sweeps of 2010.

As for Obama being the progressiviest president to ever progressive a progress, I agree. And yet his presidency is wholly insufficient. Which means that if we want real change it will never come through the electoral political system.

Only after a really long time, building the greens from the ground-up (all these third parties just keep going for hail-marys rather than slow build-up). But ultimately, I think you're right that you'll only get it through a revolution - and that sure as hell ain't happening with 30% of Americans looking like beachballs - fat, dumb, and perpetually unhappy.

Just to be clear, I don't think I've ever said "don't vote". I don't care if you vote, because I don't think it matters. Vote, if you must- but if that's all you do, you're doing nothing.

True. But there's also tons of difference between Obama and what Republicans promise. Maybe not on a galactic scale, but we live here on Earth, and that's enough difference for me.
 
2012-10-29 12:13:39 PM  

machoprogrammer: machoprogrammer: PonceAlyosha: machoprogrammer: PonceAlyosha: machoprogrammer: That is why I laugh ass off when people say Obama makes CEOs accountable.

Wouldn't someone have to say that first?

A few weeks ago, there was a Samual L Jackson video called "Wake the fark up" linked on Fark. In the video, he said that in response to a kid saying "They are all the same" and all the Fark Democrat fan club were saying how much of a hero Jackson was and how he was speaking the truth. So yes, people say it.

That doesn't follow at all. Saying "not all politicians are the same" does not imply anything about their views on CEO compensation or reigning in corporate power. You're desperate.

That was Mr. Jackson's response to the kid saying it... I shiat you not. So yes, people do indeed say that Obama is "holding CEOs accountable". So no, I am not desperate and I agree he didn't even refute the kids argument.

Actually, I am thinking of a different ad. I just re-watched it. Trying to find the one where the person said that. My bad.


It's okay, your general point stands.
 
2012-10-29 12:48:39 PM  

Jiro Dreams Of McRibs: And why? Not just because of profit but because of what used to be called the Wolfowitz doctrine--the US will not allow the rise of another super-power or world power. And if the neo-cons don't want Iran to reach the tipping point of world power, imagine how they feel about Communist China flexing over Asia.


The US will never do anything about China. They've been deemed Too Big to Flail.
 
2012-10-29 01:18:24 PM  
Bad_Seed
It's a step with no direction.

Ending delusions is progress.

You cannot do politics simply on the basis of what you are against. What have those projects and networks done over the past year? Or what are they planning to do in the coming year (do radicals in America keep a low profile during and election year to avoid frightening the horses?)

Not much if you're only concerned with sexy headline-grabbing.


Philip Francis Queeg
Tell us , what do you stand for, and how do you propose to bring it about.

Essentially a world of "from each according to ability, to each according to need" rather than "those who would eat must work".

Universal housing in the medium-range by using direct action to point out that there are plenty of empty houses and therefore it's absurd that people should be homeless. This segways into a larger critique of capitalism (Why were people kept homeless and houses kept empty? Because capitalism values profit over people.), such as by responding to the argument "Why should they get something for free when I have to pay taxes and a mortgage?" with "You shouldn't either."

Concurrently, real labor organization, with a Solidarity Unionism model rather than the quasi-feudal Business Unionism most people are used to, builds organization, solidarity, and economic power.

Eventually these types of operations can build an coalesce naturally, creating a true opposition-from-below to neoliberalism and social conservatism. The main thing that's lacking is the same that Democrat-apologists seem to value above all else- numbers. But organizing to build grassroots power can grow numbers by building credibility through (actual) intermediate victories; the Democrats can only beg and threaten. Furthermore, the Democrat-apologists plan is totally inactionable, except for voting every two or four years, whereas anyone can organize in their community or workplace and start carrying out direct action right now.

The Democrat-apologist plan has detail ONLY in the short-term: "Things won't get worse as fast!"

You can say that this is a utopian pipe dream, but the "Vote Democrat Or We're Doomed" plan has lead from failure to failure, and the only times it can claim success are still failures.


vygramul
If the Tea Party can reform the GOP

The Tea Party was never an outside group. The GOP establishment skillfully created it so they could claim moderation while actually driving the Overton Window further right. Unlike Occupy, which made fools of those Democrats who thought it could be their Tea Party, because Occupy was born of genuine frustration and opposition to the Democrats.

True. But there's also tons of difference between Obama and what Republicans promise. Maybe not on a galactic scale, but we live here on Earth, and that's enough difference for me.

Have fun voting for the Republicans from 20 years ago, and in 20 years voting for the Republicans of today.
 
2012-10-29 01:21:58 PM  

RanDomino: Philip Francis Queeg
Tell us , what do you stand for, and how do you propose to bring it about.

Essentially a world of "from each according to ability, to each according to need" rather than "those who would eat must work".

Universal housing in the medium-range by using direct action to point out that there are plenty of empty houses and therefore it's absurd that people should be homeless. This segways into a larger critique of capitalism (Why were people kept homeless and houses kept empty? Because capitalism values profit over people.), such as by responding to the argument "Why should they get something for free when I have to pay taxes and a mortgage?" with "You shouldn't either."

Concurrently, real labor organization, with a Solidarity Unionism model rather than the quasi-feudal Business Unionism most people are used to, builds organization, solidarity, and economic power.

Eventually these types of operations can build an coalesce naturally, creating a true opposition-from-below to neoliberalism and social conservatism. The main thing that's lacking is the same that Democrat-apologists seem to value above all else- numbers. But organizing to build grassroots power can grow numbers by building credibility through (actual) intermediate victories; the Democrats can only beg and threaten. Furthermore, the Democrat-apologists plan is totally inactionable, except for voting every two or four years, whereas anyone can organize in their community or workplace and start carrying out direct action right now.

The Democrat-apologist plan has detail ONLY in the short-term: "Things won't get worse as fast!"

You can say that this is a utopian pipe dream, but the "Vote Democrat Or We're Doomed" plan has lead from failure to failure, and the only times it can claim success are still failures.


And how is this going to happen outside of the political process? Are you planning on seizing the empty homes?

You state that the Democratic model has not had enough success. What successes has your system had?
 
2012-10-29 01:23:35 PM  

RanDomino: Universal housing in the medium-range by using direct action to point out that there are plenty of empty houses and therefore it's absurd that people should be homeless. This segways into a larger critique of capitalism (Why were people kept homeless and houses kept empty? Because capitalism values profit over people.), such as by responding to the argument "Why should they get something for free when I have to pay taxes and a mortgage?" with "You shouldn't either."


l o farking l
 
2012-10-29 01:38:32 PM  
Philip Francis Queeg
And how is this going to happen outside of the political process? Are you planning on seizing the empty homes?

Yes.
 
2012-10-29 01:40:12 PM  

mat catastrophe: GAT_00: Really? Because there's a reason I'm voting for Jill Stein.

Because you want to encourage third parties to keep wasting their time, money, and effort on national elections they cannot win (and even if they did, would find themselves powerless to effect any change) instead of focusing on local elections first and building up a base of support in communities that would, in the short term, have a greater effect on your day-to-day life than who the President is and, in the long term, lead to the actual possibility of national gains?


...You I like.
 
2012-10-29 01:42:31 PM  
sprawl15
l o farking l

Tell me how this is less credible than your plan for "deep Constitutional meddling."
Who exactly will carry out this "deep Constitutional meddling"?
 
2012-10-29 01:43:42 PM  

RanDomino: Philip Francis Queeg
And how is this going to happen outside of the political process? Are you planning on seizing the empty homes?

Yes.


I see. And what do you propose to do to anyone who attempts to stop you from seizing those homes or otherwise interfering in your agenda?

Tell us, how many homeless people are you housing at your place right now? Should it be seized for the common good?
 
2012-10-29 01:50:52 PM  
Philip Francis Queeg
I see. And what do you propose to do to anyone who attempts to stop you from seizing those homes or otherwise interfering in your agenda?

A well-executed squat can be unnoticed for years. Good organization can create community support. Repetition and scale can make it economically foolish or even economically impossible for cities to send in the police.

Tell us, how many homeless people are you housing at your place right now?

Zero, because there are, as I said, plenty of empty houses. There is no need to cram 20 people in one building and leave 19 empty.

Should it be seized for the common good?

Just in case you didn't see it the first four times: EMPTY houses. Of which there are roughly six for each homeless person in the US.
 
2012-10-29 01:54:09 PM  

RanDomino: Who exactly will carry out this "deep Constitutional meddling"?


Nobody, our system is farked. That's why it's a requirement for a theoretical balanced system, rather than an actual expectation from politicians. You didn't get that? It was pretty clear.

RanDomino: Tell me how this is less credible than your plan for "deep Constitutional meddling."


Depends how you measure 'credible'. They both require magic powers or wishes to enact, so they aren't particularly credible that way. But at least mine isn't totally batshiat crazy. So there's that.
 
2012-10-29 01:56:00 PM  

RanDomino: Philip Francis Queeg
I see. And what do you propose to do to anyone who attempts to stop you from seizing those homes or otherwise interfering in your agenda?

A well-executed squat can be unnoticed for years. Good organization can create community support. Repetition and scale can make it economically foolish or even economically impossible for cities to send in the police.

Tell us, how many homeless people are you housing at your place right now?

Zero, because there are, as I said, plenty of empty houses. There is no need to cram 20 people in one building and leave 19 empty.

Should it be seized for the common good?

Just in case you didn't see it the first four times: EMPTY houses. Of which there are roughly six for each homeless person in the US.


So other people's property should be seized but not yours?

What happened to "from each according to ability, to each according to need"? Surely if you have extra room it should be being used by those in need. Why are you hording resources like that? Wouldn't\ it be a great example for your cause if you spread your resources amongst those in need? I don't think you have full grasped what your Credo calls for. YOU must be willing to surrender YOUR possessions to those in need, not just the possessions of others.
 
2012-10-29 02:30:53 PM  

HeartBurnKid: TheOther: HeartBurnKid: RanDomino: This is not an 'intermediate goal'. It's a compromise. A substitution. A way for them to say, "Shut up and be happy you got anything at all." Many people have said that this is a "stepping stone" but not one has yet said HOW it will lead to universal healthcare. Not even a dumb plan- I haven't heard any plan at all! The consistency of the "stepping stone" excuse, and lack of depth, leads me to believe that it's just a Democratic Party talking point, which apparatchiks like yourself like to spew because it lets you sound right.

Ah. So not only are you impatient, you think anybody who takes a longer view is an "apparatchik".

Oh, to be young, dumb, and full of cum again.

YOU think you're taking the 'longer view'?!?

Sure am. I'm not the one going on about "But I want social change NOW! NOW NOW NOW!"


If not 'NOW, when? Let's see your timeline. What's the plan?
 
2012-10-29 02:48:39 PM  

RanDomino: Have fun voting for the Republicans from 20 years ago, and in 20 years voting for the Republicans of today.


Again - you're assuming that my activism is limited to voting.
 
2012-10-29 03:13:56 PM  
sprawl15
Nobody, our system is farked.

I am highly motivated by your stirring call to do nothing.

Depends how you measure 'credible'. They both require magic powers or wishes to enact, so they aren't particularly credible that way. But at least mine isn't totally batshiat crazy. So there's that.

Mine has a 99% chance of failure whereas yours, "Operation Don't Bother," has a 100% chance of failure.


Philip Francis Queeg
the possessions of others.

Empty houses are not the possessions of 'others'. They are unowned and available for homesteading.


vygramul
Again - you're assuming that my activism is limited to voting.

If not, then that's good. Don't work too hard encouraging people to vote, if it means less time doing things which are actually productive.
 
2012-10-29 03:17:47 PM  

RanDomino: I am highly motivated by your stirring call to do nothing.


You aren't too good with those pesky 'word' things, are you?
 
2012-10-29 03:52:26 PM  
sprawl15
You aren't too good with those pesky 'word' things, are you?

I must not be, because I didn't see what part of what you said is actually a plan.
 
2012-10-29 04:33:03 PM  

RanDomino: I must not be, because I didn't see what part of what you said is actually a plan.


Adorable.
 
2012-10-29 04:43:18 PM  

TheOther: HeartBurnKid: TheOther: HeartBurnKid: RanDomino: This is not an 'intermediate goal'. It's a compromise. A substitution. A way for them to say, "Shut up and be happy you got anything at all." Many people have said that this is a "stepping stone" but not one has yet said HOW it will lead to universal healthcare. Not even a dumb plan- I haven't heard any plan at all! The consistency of the "stepping stone" excuse, and lack of depth, leads me to believe that it's just a Democratic Party talking point, which apparatchiks like yourself like to spew because it lets you sound right.

Ah. So not only are you impatient, you think anybody who takes a longer view is an "apparatchik".

Oh, to be young, dumb, and full of cum again.

YOU think you're taking the 'longer view'?!?

Sure am. I'm not the one going on about "But I want social change NOW! NOW NOW NOW!"

If not 'NOW, when? Let's see your timeline. What's the plan?


I told you my plan -- work the system from within to swing the window back to the left, so we might actually have a serious conversation about these matters without getting shouted down by the right-wingers and their pet media.

Your turn. Show me yours.
 
2012-10-29 04:50:18 PM  

RanDomino: Philip Francis Queeg
the possessions of others.

Empty houses are not the possessions of 'others'. They are unowned and available for homesteading.


That spare bedroom you have is unowned and available for homesteading, right?
 
2012-10-29 04:51:52 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: RanDomino: Philip Francis Queeg
the possessions of others.

Empty houses are not the possessions of 'others'. They are unowned and available for homesteading.

That spare bedroom you have is unowned and available for homesteading, right?


It's not rape. It's homesteading.
 
2012-10-29 05:18:40 PM  

sprawl15: Philip Francis Queeg: RanDomino: Philip Francis Queeg
the possessions of others.

Empty houses are not the possessions of 'others'. They are unowned and available for homesteading.

That spare bedroom you have is unowned and available for homesteading, right?

It's not rape. It's homesteading.


If his wife's vagina isn't being used....
 
2012-10-29 06:15:57 PM  

HeartBurnKid: TheOther: HeartBurnKid: TheOther: HeartBurnKid: RanDomino: This is not an 'intermediate goal'. It's a compromise. A substitution. A way for them to say, "Shut up and be happy you got anything at all." Many people have said that this is a "stepping stone" but not one has yet said HOW it will lead to universal healthcare. Not even a dumb plan- I haven't heard any plan at all! The consistency of the "stepping stone" excuse, and lack of depth, leads me to believe that it's just a Democratic Party talking point, which apparatchiks like yourself like to spew because it lets you sound right.

Ah. So not only are you impatient, you think anybody who takes a longer view is an "apparatchik".

Oh, to be young, dumb, and full of cum again.

YOU think you're taking the 'longer view'?!?

Sure am. I'm not the one going on about "But I want social change NOW! NOW NOW NOW!"

If not 'NOW, when? Let's see your timeline. What's the plan?

I told you my plan -- work the system from within to swing the window back to the left, so we might actually have a serious conversation about these matters without getting shouted down by the right-wingers and their pet media.

Your turn. Show me yours.


Oops! You forgot the timeline. Democrats always forget the timeline, except for the 'Not now' or 'Not this election it's too important to keep X out of office BOOGIEBOOGIEBOOGIE!!!'
 
2012-10-29 06:16:44 PM  
Philip Francis Queeg
That spare bedroom you have is unowned and available for homesteading, right?

There are lots of spare bedrooms. The empty house on the corner has a couple, the empty house down the street has four or five, there's an empty apartment building a few blocks away...
 
2012-10-29 06:20:04 PM  

RanDomino: Philip Francis Queeg
That spare bedroom you have is unowned and available for homesteading, right?

There are lots of spare bedrooms. The empty house on the corner has a couple, the empty house down the street has four or five, there's an empty apartment building a few blocks away...


So basically what you are saying is that you have no intent to put your ideals into practice and that you intend to personally defend your material possessions as much as the capitalists you despise. What a shocking development from a radical revolutionary like you.
 
2012-10-29 06:20:05 PM  
sprawl15
Adorable.

Okay, let me fill in the blanks. I'm going to get together with my friends, co-workers, and other concerned community members about this plan to carry out "deep Constitutional meddling". Then we will go find the Constitution and meddle with it. Is that about right?


HeartBurnKid
I told you my plan -- work the system from within to swing the window back to the left

We tried your plan. It didn't work.
 
2012-10-29 06:21:29 PM  
Philip Francis Queeg
So basically what you are saying is that you have no intent to put your ideals into practice and that you intend to personally defend your material possessions as much as the capitalists you despise. What a shocking development from a radical revolutionary like you.

I'm not sure how cramming every homeless person in my house is going to get them into other houses which are empty.
 
2012-10-29 06:24:46 PM  

RanDomino: HeartBurnKid
Ah. So not only are you impatient, you think anybody who takes a longer view is an "apparatchik".

Anybody who prioritizes the Party over any humanist principles or goals is an apparatchik.

Sure am. I'm not the one going on about "But I want social change NOW! NOW NOW NOW!"

Your strategy leads to change never. There has been no progress in years (decades even, it you want to talk about the '70s- or the '60s or '30s, when change was driven by groups acting outside the political system, forcing the Democrats to offer compromises just to destroy our momentum), and the path you suggest is totally controlled by people that despise us and everything we stand for. This is a stupid plan, and your only goal is to channel outrage and desire for change into uncritically supporting The Party.


Well, your way would never lead to change either, because the people you want to be in power would never get there.
 
2012-10-29 06:28:15 PM  

RanDomino: Philip Francis Queeg
So basically what you are saying is that you have no intent to put your ideals into practice and that you intend to personally defend your material possessions as much as the capitalists you despise. What a shocking development from a radical revolutionary like you.

I'm not sure how cramming every homeless person in my house is going to get them into other houses which are empty.


"from each according to ability, to each according to need"

You have the ability to house people. There are people in need of housing. Do you believe yourself to be somehow exempt from the requirements of your creed? Surely someone as enlightened as you wouldn't see any problem with taking in a homeless person or two, right? Think of how much it would do to spread your message when your community sees you putting your plans into concrete action. You can show those bourgeois capitalist stooges how to get past the silly notion of private property.
 
2012-10-29 06:30:37 PM  
Philip Francis Queeg
You have the ability to house people. There are people in need of housing. Do you believe yourself to be somehow exempt from the requirements of your creed? Surely someone as enlightened as you wouldn't see any problem with taking in a homeless person or two, right? Think of how much it would do to spread your message when your community sees you putting your plans into concrete action. You can show those bourgeois capitalist stooges how to get past the silly notion of private property.

I see that we're done here.
 
2012-10-29 06:33:43 PM  

RanDomino: Philip Francis Queeg
You have the ability to house people. There are people in need of housing. Do you believe yourself to be somehow exempt from the requirements of your creed? Surely someone as enlightened as you wouldn't see any problem with taking in a homeless person or two, right? Think of how much it would do to spread your message when your community sees you putting your plans into concrete action. You can show those bourgeois capitalist stooges how to get past the silly notion of private property.

I see that we're done here.


Yes, I guess we are. You've turned out to be an armchair revolutionary full of nothing but hot air.
 
2012-10-29 06:40:06 PM  

RanDomino: I'm going to get together with my friends, co-workers, and other concerned community members about this plan to carry out "deep Constitutional meddling". Then we will go find the Constitution and meddle with it.


If you want to do that, go for it. I won't object.

It won't accomplish anything, but have at it.
 
2012-10-29 07:23:29 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: mat catastrophe: Because you want to encourage third parties to keep wasting their time, money, and effort on national elections they cannot win (and even if they did, would find themselves powerless to effect any change) instead of focusing on local elections first and building up a base of support in communities that would, in the short term, have a greater effect on your day-to-day life than who the President is and, in the long term, lead to the actual possibility of national gains?

There were a number of Libertarian and Green party people on the ballot for me on the non-Big Election items. Of course, they were running for President/Senators as well.


But the odds are that the parties weren't pushing them. Hell, they're barely pushing their national tickets this year.

sprawl15:
The most telling part of the third party debate was the last question. If they were given a guarantee to pass on one constitutional amendment of their choice, what would they pick? None of them picked anything that would let third parties compete.

They're morons.


Not really, because the two party system is not Constitutionally mandated - it's just something that grew out of the original problems encountered when the nation was getting started. Federalists versus anti-Federalists, more or less. I doubt there's any language that could be constructed for an amendment that would change the two-party system without radically altering the actual system of government.

Empty Matchbook:

...You I like.


There's something I don't hear very often...
 
Displayed 50 of 207 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report