Politics - politics news, political issues,...

I like some of their policies ie universal health care, but I feel like some other things are too loose, like becoming an illegal alien is incredibly easy. Also, legalized Marijuana.

What about legalised marijuana? The way you worded it is confusing.

I am strongly against it. I think it breeds generations of unproductive oxygen thieves.

For slightly different reasons.

Much worse could be said for alcohol and tobacco, and yet it's not just legal, it's pushed on you. I'm not for marijuana legalisation, just its decriminalization.

I also forgot to mention that I agree with canada's drinking policy. I myself am in the US Military and I'm 19. The fact that I could sign on for my country, potentially die, and not even be able to enjoy a beer or some rum is ridiculous. Also, I don't believe that weed should be decriminalized, referring back to my previous comment.

I'd rather be an oxygen thief than an actual thief. Usually when you use marijuana (Incredible stress on usually) the only person your hurting is yourself. The same just can't be said about many other drugs, including alcohol.

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't touch the stuff with a five foot long stick. I just don't see the point in going through the trouble of fighting it when there isn't that much harm to be had in the first place.

I agree with some of that, the only problem between alcohol and weed is, you can drink 1 or 2 beers and still retain some lucidity (whether or not you can handle it) if you smoke any amount of weed, you get high and it makes you physically care less about things, such as working or being an overall productive citizen. Also, alcohol is regulated to some degree in most countries such as no drinking in public, public drunkeness, no drunk driving or DUI, so alcohol while it does harm yourself as you stated (and possibly others depending on the persons actions) is in my opinion less harmful to a society's well being than marijuana.

Also, I'm done for the night. I'll reply tomorrow to any more comments. Just don't think I've abandoned you yet.

Right on, I'm there with you.

noot noot

I'm not advocating it be a nonchalant thing. You need to be in a right setup and mindset for it. It is possible to balance marijuana and a productive lifestyle though. It has its addicts, yet what doesn't?

As for that "marijuana makes people lazy", some of the laziest people I've ever known were alcoholics. It's at least as addictive, and it drains the life out of those who can't control themselves. No matter what drugs you let be legal and decide are illegal, someone's going to ruin their lives with them. It's a fact of life.

A very valid point, and I think our generalizations are based off of different areas. Where I'm from, there's far too many people that start to smoke weed, become lazy twats, quit their jobs, and begin to collect welfare solely to support their continuous flow of weed. Which begins the vicious cycle of weed making one lazy. As for alcohol, I know several people (including family members) whose lives have been ruined by alcohol, I'm not saying one is better than the other, it's more of a "pick your poison" type of deal.

About fifth square from below, third/fourth from the left.

bolt action rifles such as the mosin naget

I really wanna fire a H&K weapon, like a MP5 or somethin

I like level action.

different strokes for different blokes

"Hey look someone has a different opinion"

look below

Fuck that guy

yay

I love this gif.

whats it from?

Shaving Ryan's private

kinky

I like revolvers and walters.

It seems everyone likes small arms

To be fair, I don't really know much about guns, I just think they look cool. Especially the walter.

I ike colt

It looks awesome! Or the .44 magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world, and could blow your head clean off. Now you got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky. Well do ya punk?

.500 S&W

And bolt rifles, like Arisaka. Like the arisaka. Hehehe. No, but yes, I also like bolt rifles.

And the AA-12.

Weapons wich can have a beaten like a Klasnikof wich always will work

M16

Oxan noxa are going to nig this shit all up.

The Diemaco C7 (Colt Canada C7 rifle)
Its a M16 variant but reliable even after water or dirt contact
preformace of a M16
reliable as a AK

communism can eat dick

Hohoho, Americans thinking their firearms are durable at all.

I rather have a gun that jams more often but performs better than a gun that is only cheap and reliable.

Naxo*

M16 is meh.

Bullpups are nice. But I prefer bolt action rifles.

Bull pubs only look nice but lack operational efficiency due to their design.

> lack operational efficiency due to their design.

How so...?

Reloading.

It's been a while since I've looked in depth are weapons, but whenever someone raised that concern, soldiers who used the rifles said otherwise.

Sometimes.

Guns.

Not firearms.

Guns.

Any howitzer or field type gun. Holy fuck. I would put them everywhere.

Other than that, I really like bolt-action rifles, preferably those with internal box magazines. I also really like the battle rifles used during the early days of the cold war.

>bolt action rifles

Yeeeeeeesss.

>Not firearms.

>Any howitzer or field type gun.
>I also really like the battle rifles used during the early days of the cold war.

Wut.

Historically the word gun refers to large-bore weapons, not small arms.

I then moved on to a lesser preferred set of weapons, which WERE small arms

not 2 hard 2 follow m8

Wut u want m8

Elegant small arms. In semi-automatic/fully automatic weapons, the machinery and perfectly moving parts is fascinating. I do not like revolvers because they are too simple, same with pretty much anything that explodes because they're just too boring.

I love revolvers not just for their simplicity but for their power, accuracy, and reliability.
I like the Colt single action and the Blackhawk series.

I like all small arms, and even some of the heavier weapons (like heavy machine guns) anything that makes a infantry a deadly foe.

I know revolvers are more reliable, but when you have a rifle that can use a chemical explosion to force a projectile down a rotating barrel to stabilize it for its flight, while not letting the recoil go to waste and instead using it to chamber the next round, all with minimal input work from the user while still maintaining that the user retains the necessary skill, it's beautiful. It's like art.

The recoil on piston type riffles is kind of annoying, depending on the type of piston.

Well compared to a rifle its lighter and I like that.

more specificly, I like SBRs
but our annoying federal government banned them (more or less) in 1930ish due to gang activity and the supreme court ruled it constitutional because the 2nd amendment only protects military style weapons, which is sooo ironic today.

Where do you live?
Yeah libtards are crazy.

I find the mechanics of small arms to indeed be an art form of everything in the palm of your hand were even the lightest flaw is a death. The beauty of it all.

north dakota

Firebomb them. Firebomb them good.

?

Gun laws are getting crazy illogical.

North Dakota's actually pretty good about it since we're a rural state and have a lot of hunters, not to mention the highest percentage of church goers (I think) of any other state so it's pretty republican. It was one of the few states that tried to go against federal gun laws by making it a civil offense of local officers to assist federal agents in gun-control related crimes. Also, our democratic senator was one of the few democrats who voted against the gun control bill in the spring.

interesting fact: if North Dakota were to secede, we'd be the 3rd largest nuclear power since most of the US's arsenal is stockpiled here.

We should totally secede. Wait for the US economy to crash and then boom secede.

How did they determine the fetus could feel pain...?

They might've determined that the nervous system starts to develop or is developed at that point, which would lead to feeling pain and the like.

Not quite sure if they'd be able to measure the degree of pain at which a fetus could feel, but they could determine that they might feel something at least.

Eh, seems dodgy to me. Unless they're actually testing the fetus, there's no real conclusive way to determine if it can feel pain, as far as I'm aware.

IDK. Probably something like tracing the nerves back to the brain.

Thumbs for lulz.

Hmm, I'd have to read more about it before I believe it.

hmm, NVM... I guess it started in the house but since that was a party line vote it would have no chance of passing the democrat-controlled senate. Even if it did manage to pass the pres would just veto it.

In terms of crops? It has the potential to become something absolutely beneficial to the environment and even nutrition wise, but at its current state, it's also a danger.
It requires quite a bit of regulation;
Labeling is obviously a must, and it might even have to be labeled as "Possibly Dangerous Product"; There was a string of incidents regarding a Genetic modification company called Aventis Starlink, and one of those incidents regarded allergic reactions to the product, due in part that the genetic modification used a Bt Protein.

Another apparent issue; contamination. Aventis had a major issue where, I imagine through pollenation, contaminated other markets' corn and corn products. There was even a dilemma regarding Taco Bell's taco shells.

This also raises an additional problem of the attempt at patenting this sort of thing, to the point that any other farmer found growing it without authorization can get sued (which is what Mon Santo is pushing) - contamination would be a doorway to someone getting sued, even if they never wanted the DNA which got forced into their crop to begin with.

GM's a double edged sword - it can be beneficial; I remember reading a scientist who specialized in genetically modifying corn and was actively working to stopping hunger in some poor nations. On top of the added possibility of limited to non-existent chemical presence which causes severe environmental damage as well as economic plus with products like corn needing littler cost, it's something that should definitely be pursued. Hell, it could even help farmers reach a state where they don't have to struggle to make ends meet.

But on the corporate end, it definitely requires a large deal of supervision.

Labeling it as a dangerous product even if their is no proof can be just as damaging. Let the people who care about what they eat do the research rather than displaying something that is nonfactual.

Its why they made the food sterile in many cases.

The issue with patents is that they have lasted too long (50 years plus the life of the owner) Thanks didney wurl. But also farmers should also keep test samples and companies should make a genetic trade mark.

Synthesized proteins always have a polar risk, especially when you start producing enzymes that can mimic the nature of a pesticide or a chemical. Because GM is still very young in its advancements, the need for warning should be present, because there's plenty of people that have no idea of the scope of GM outside of its potential. Though it doesn't have to be labeled straight up "DANGER", it will still need a sign that heavily emphasizes its status as a GM food and, if the proteins were never fully tested to showing minimal allergic reactions, requires a label that presents the possibility of risks from these synthesized modifications.

Companies should have some form of genetic trade mark to go by the credit of their earnings, but with the way the patent system is designed, it simply doesn't fit the perquisites for a patent of the nature of genetic modification, beyond just the 50 + life of owner shtick. As GM starts to develop, we'd need to open up a complete department in the Patent offices followed by a crew consisting of both law majors and biological and genetic science and engineering majors, to fully work out how a genetic modification could be patented, if we'd even go the direction of having them be allowed to be patented at all.

If you label "Danger" You will crush the industry and the project will be forgotten.

And allergic reactions change from person to person. Now if you want to worry about allergic reactions label that but a flat out "Danger" will just crush the industry.

No you need to put it on the company to show the genetic info and proof that there was on a large scale operation that is using their product without consent and if so that harvest must be labeled GMO.

Labeling it "DANGER" is obviously going to be ridiculous, but having a system of labeling might be a requirement that shows the degree of testing on the GM vs. the level of negativity (or positivity) found towards the probable allergic reaction.

Overall, GM is going to require a lot of systems to be established.

Or.
We could just label it GMO and let the smarter consumer decide if he wants to buy it or not.
And I hope not.

That's too simplified, and that would risk the industry of being destroyed even more, because if the products do start turning up with allergic reactions (or if people fake allergic reactions), then you end up with a mixture of paranoia and outrage at the lack of a more refined system being implemented that risks not only harming the industry, but also rendering it permanently scarred when everyone starts to automatically turn their heads sideways at the sight of the acronym "GM" of any sort.

Refined system ensures a sense of security, sense of security ensures abolishment of any fears towards the subject of GM, GM slowly integrates itself into becoming more and more accepted into the general public, then when GM starts to achieve a more wider stance, it doesn't have any obstacles strangling it; only filtration systems that prevent harmful GMs from striking paranoia in GM in general.

.....
Did i not just say it would be labeled "Those allergic to _____ should avoid this as it may contain this"

Then be fucking sensible about it sweet Christ! Let the people decide what they want to eat!

And I'm telling you it doesn't work like that.

You can't just say "those allergic to _____" because you're not writing down "peanuts, walnuts, oats type genes" you're writing completely new and sometimes hard-to-find genetic protein labels.

Starlink's protein was named Cry9C, for example. Looking that protein up you'll find a scrap of information that will be difficult to understand if you don't have immediate know-how on phrasing used in biological and genetic science. That's just the way these things work.

That's why you HAVE to implement a system that people can immediately read - like a color code or a number rating system - that averages out the amount of testing done on the modified proteins and enzymes vs. the problem rate found in the testing.

If you leave it to just "HEY, IF YOU'RE ALLERGIC TO CX26-Z30, YOU GOT A PROBLEM!", you're going to find a lot of people simply not buying the products - whether they're good or not - because they have no idea how to approach something like that.

...Maybe those who have allergic reactions will ask their doctors for a test for it.

Same thing with peanuts and every other allergy scare before we will create a test and label for it.

Most people don't have issue with allegies so they will ignore it.

But a label will fuel the organic food nuts who say "See it got a label if it was safe they wouldn't need a label!" But a few allergic reactions allow us to open the public to the drawbacks and allow them self to test themselves,

Doctors would have to wait for a report to be generated by the offices regarding that protein's documentation. It's more probable that people will just buy it to try it and put themselves at risk or simply not buy into the industry at all.

Most people have also never consumed a vegetable which contained a protein that became it's own pesticide.

A label in general is going to fuel the organic food nuts no matter what, a refined label system will abolish whatever accusations they could have because it's fleshed out to a point beyond just "HEY, CONTAINS PROTEIN X, SOME ARE ALLERGIC, EY".

And under no circumstances should the public ever become guinea pigs. When allergic reactions appear, they're going to be drastic enough to harm the industry because there was never any proper information being circulated to the public regarding the genetic modifications, and that alone will be enough to murder the industry.

Again the same thing can be said about peanuts and other things.

The allergic reactions are limited to a few substances and the one you mentioned which does not effect all GMO products.

Except the rules of allergies in natural foods don't apply to GM.

When corn gets GM'd to be a pesticide, it's generally modified in such a way that it produces a bacteria; this is the basis for the pesticide. Bt corn was created to produce the bacterial Bt toxin, which was effective against the European Corn borer.

A dilemma arises in which, the pest that is being fought against is capable of evolving against its newfound opponent. The European corn borer has even shown capability of developing a resistance against the Bt, and the fact that a quarter of farmers using Bt aren't complying with the rules that were put in place to minimize resistance of Bt in place, that means that they'll need a new GM to produce either a strong bacteria or a new bacteria entirely.

This means that the food is going to have to change. And when it changes, it's going to need the public to be notified all across the board, and they'll have to either find out if the new protein + the bacteria is safe for them by being guinea pigs, or by having it tested and labeled appropriately.

The general public doesn't understand how drastic the changes can be and how what they weren't allergic too before could be a different story because a more viral variation of bacteria was needed.

I don't understand why you're protesting a labeling function that could not only allow GM to run more efficiently but also ensure the safety and security of the public while minimizing all chances of a fiasco.

Let me just ask you something when you put warning on tobacco does it or does it no discourage buying it? And allow for organic food people to say "Do you want to take the risk of eating this? Even the government agrees its dangerous!"

Without tests it will not matter what you label it.

....
I'm not asking for it to just be a single solitary warning label.

I'm asking for a system of labels that clarify the level of safety for the GM product.
The organic food people would not be able to say that the government says something is dangerous if the label claims it's safe or has a high degree of safety.

It RUNS ON TESTS, that's what the whole thing averages out against.

Then say that. But don't ramble on how bad GMO's are and that we need to label them as dangerous products that can cause allergic reactions.

Not*

If plants can be modified to "naturally" produce a pesticide, for example, that increase yield and reduce input costs and chemical runoff into rivers thus lowering the market price and the environmental impact, and it has been shown to be non-toxic to humans,

I'm all for it.

indeed.

but it should still be labeled so that people can still make the choice of what to buy on their own

I agree.

But then again they might label it say "Dangerous product eat at your own risk" Shit that I hate.

What about it?

Shall we talk about risk of harm from GM food, whether GM food should be labeled, the role of government regulators, the effect of GM crops on the environment, the impact of GM crops for farmers, the role of GM crops in feeding the growing world population, or GM crops as part of the industrial agriculture system.

Any one of them you choose. All of those factor into its legality.

Risk of harm from GM food:
I've only done basic research on the topic of Round-up Ready Soybeans for a school assignment 2 years ago. From what I saw we have multinational agricultural biotechnology corporations like Monsanto who make the genetically modified products releasing statements saying that the products are safe for human consumption and on the other hand we have intellectuals like Dr. Judy Carman, Dr. Lennart Hardell, Dr. Mikael Eriksson and Peter A. Bowler claiming that there are dangers including cancer and various birth defects.

Personally, I agree with partially agree with pebar. If there are environmental or economic benefits in the short and long term and if, and only if, there is unanimous or widely-agreed scientific research stating that it is safe for human consumption in the short and long term then I am for the use of genetic modification in food products.

Whether GM food should be labeled, the role of government regulators:
Yes, most definitely. I want to know if the food I eat has been genetically modified, and I would like to know specifically what has been modified.

The effect of GM crops on the environment:
Sort of related to my first paragraph. Under the mentioned parameters I would support the use of GM crops, especially for environmental benefit.

The impact of GM crops for farmers:
I haven't done much research on it. But from what I saw there has been a bit of a shitstorm with copious suing occurring from both sides..

The role of GM crops in feeding the growing world population:
I believe that, under the parameters stated in the first paragraph, GM food could play a vital role in feeding the growing world population.

Everything can cause cancer its all about the dose. I would like to see the evidence for birth defects.

You could pick up and read a consumer report or do research of the products you buy every once and a while.

The issue with GM crops on farmers is directly related to the fact of how long patents exist now.


Not agreeing just adding in info.

>do research of the products you buy every once and a while.

I should have seen that coming.

Whats wrong with buying smart?

I never said there's nothing wrong with it. Many people don't have the time, resources, or know-how to research the products they buy, however, which is why state regulation remains essential.

Thanks.

What's your stance?

Allow it and let the free markets deal with it.

I mean we allow tobacco and alcohol which have proven links to disease (liver damage and lung cancer etc.) and liberals are arguing for pot are trying to ban this stuff.

>implying we shouldn't be gradually phasing out tobacco
>implying we shouldn't be gradually phasing out alcohol, beginning with decreasing alcohol content and maintaining or increasing prices

Why should we?
Bans do nothing but harm and there is no way to eliminate a product without them. and it should not be the business of the people or government what individuals choose to do with their life.

Did I advocate banning anything?

Because bans are the only way to get limit of human nature and free will. And raising prices to unreal amounts is the same thing as a ban.

>implying human nature and 'free' will really exist

And: 'and maintaining or increasing prices.'

Hell, I didn't even specify what the increase would be, if any. But there was another keyword: gradually

Take a grain of rice, every day double it. Gradually you get to an impossible amount that leads to boot legging.

Human nature. The nature of humanity. If you are going to sit there and claim that human nature and free will does not exist you sir are beyond reason or logic but rather a beast of emotion and fantasy.

Good thing we're not doubling the price everyday. Plus, the point of phasing it out gradually is to reduce the demand for it, so boot legging does not occur.

Free will is making decisions unconstrained by other factors. If you don't think the superstructure has immense influence on the decisions people supposedly make through their own free will, then you're beyond reason and logic. Human nature is something that changes. It's not eternal. It's not universal.

There will always be a demand for it. Name one society that doesn't have a demand for it.

Human nature can be changed but in the end we remain the same in many things. And all people are influenced by things but in the end we have choice.

None that come to mind today. Probably because the demand for it is creating. You know, they can create demand for products people otherwise wouldn't care for, right?

We've changed significantly over the centuries, undeadwill. Today, equality is core to many constitutions. Try going back a few centuries and telling a serf that he's as equal as his lord. That'll end well.

Or because human nature dictates what you are proposing is impossible.

Those are societies, not human nature (Seriously nigger. Seriously?) Human nature is that man kind will work to further himself in all things, he will work with others to help accomplish these goals but so long as there is something to gain etc.

Yeah, whatever you say.

What the fuck do you think influences how societies are structured? Do you honestly believe that fuedal lords didn't see serfs as their natural lessers?

Unless you can prove without banning you can remove those substances I refuse to believe otherwise with out proof.

No less than the party members saw their peasant workers.

We could look at the decrease in the number of smokers, as it has becomes less desirable. It's not a radical concept.

Haha, really? Because the Bolsheviks gained power with hostility to the far more numerous peasantry, didn't they? Do you even read what you post?

I don't know why you are getting so many red thumbs.

I though the political board was better than this.

they are ashamed about the ''rich'' jews taking part of theire idealogy
National socialism had jewish soldiers/officers and was finaced by 2 jewish berlin bankers in its rise and you dont see me getting 'damn jews grrrr' about it honesty in fascism or national socialism

People just see it as irrelevant nonsense, frisia. There's no evidence Jews have an agenda.

Jacob Schiff (Ashkenazi Jew) was head of the New York
investment firm Kuhn, Loeb and Co. He
was one of the principal backers of the
Bolshevik revolution and personally
financed Trotsky's trip from New York
to Russia. He was a major contributor
to Woodrow Wilson's presidential
campaign and an advocate for passage
of the Federal Reserve Act.
SOURCE ''The Creature from Jekyll Island '' (p. 210)

Follow the Money oxan you'll find the Jews there

The agenda Zionist/globalist related agenda of the jews is in communism is ''Jewish Bolshevism'' wich is a controlled oppisiton wich is a perfect weapon to overtrow goverments with
The Zionist/globalist bankers made a deal with Britain and the united states at the end of the first world war wich is that if You both dont promish the state of isreal for the Jews then we will release ''Jewish Bolshevism'' upon your lands

And the Goverments knew verry clearly what the dangers of ''Jewish Bolshevism'' were like the burning the livestock of russian peasents to starve them
so the goverents haad to chose between Zionism of Bolshevism
and they choose Zionism
Only thing they needed is a Anti-sementic leader who would re-make the infamouse Guilty complex of judea and be a source for money (holocaust repirations)
so they got to germany and fucked everything up with major jewish invluence and out of Reaction there came The national socialist party (Note thats why fascism and national socialism are reactionary)

Fascinating story.

The only thing really worth addressing is the burning of livestock - that was committed by Tsarist reactionaries.

Explain this?

what part? about the jewish involvement at the communist of the national socialists?

Both

will do after work

k

*or

Duke will most likely mention, in his section on 1905, this Jew, who was responsible for Russia's loss in the Russo-Japanese War which fueled the failed 1905 revolution.

Jacob Schiff was a typical Wall Street Jew who held a grudge against the Russian Empire for not letting his fellow tribesmen run free and hold control over government institutions. The Jews were restricted to living in only the districts near the Ukraine.

War between the Tzar and Japan was inevitable by the turn of the century due to land disputes in Manchuria and Korea. The Tzar's adviser for the contended region, I remember reading, was the owner of a Russian log-cutting company with interests there. Although Russia's military was far from modern, Japan's was feudal. The Russians entered conflict with them so as to expect a decisive victory. Russian society turned patriotic, Lvov took it to himself to DJ 4DM1Nister charity.

Behind the scenes, however, picture related gave charity of his own. He gifted 200 million dollars, with extension, to the Japanese who in turned used it to fund their military. Obviously, Russia could not overcome such a thing (the fighting was many miles away from St. Petersburg), and lost the war. It was the first war in which a European power lost to a non-European power. The Russian people saw this as the fault of an incompetent Tzar, and so did the 1905 Revolution become a fact. More representation in government, the Russians argued, would be the only solution to the ills which caused such a defeat.

While Russia was amidst in chaos, Schiff was awarded the Order of the Sacred Treasure and later the Order of the Rising Sun, Gold and Silver Star in Japan. He was given them personally by the emperor; the first foreigner to have had such an honor. This, no doubt, had much to do with later Japanese friendliness towards Jews during its alliance with Germany.

A fun fact is that Schiff's descendant married Al Gore's daughter, Karenna Gore Schiff and has three children.

well then.....

tl;dr Schiff, a Jew, funds Japan, fucks over Russia, causes the 1905 revolution. It is an interesting story and rarely mentioned in history books. What I have read on the Russo-Japanese war made it seem like it was Russia's disorganization which caused the loss (e.i. Russian generals ordering their troops to charge into artillery).

Same thing happened to everyone during that time, especially during WW1. Rapidly expanding industry creating devastating news weapons such as machine guns that would massacre anyone who dared to attempt a charge, which before that time was a common practice in war.

It definitely was a factor, but the revelation of financial funds from Wall Street was what caused the defeat of Russia. Japanese war tactics were not any better than Russia's.

Much of those who died could have lived if their generals could fight via advanced tactics, that is true. Japan was able to overpower Russia in the end, though, only with the excess munitions they purchased through Schiff's loans.

Ohh god....

>so little attention on a much larger Holocaust DJ 4DM1Nistered by Jews.

Funnily enough, some of the biggest voices against Israel and human rights abuses are from the Left.

David Duke will look, obviously, into the history of Communism and Zionism, in which they are associated. He is not writing in particular of modern leftists. The point of Hess and his association with Marx is a very good one, for instance, in which there is much to write on.

And it means nothing, byposted. Communists have always opposed Zionism.

>David Duke
It takes skill to scare the majority of people away before the end of the first sentence. Good job, comrade.

He represents his base, which cannot be said of what were the Bolshevik-weenies and what are modern politicians.

10/10, would appoint to DJ 4DM1Nistrative post.

His base is the KKK, so I don't really give a shit how well he represents them.

The KKK used to represent America. Look at Dixie now that niggers are allowed to roam free.

K. Have fun with that.

Wow two red thumbs already.

They still think Communism is workable, and not a ploy. While the bureaucrats dined like the bourgeois used to during the post Civil War Soviet Union, the laborers had to work more for less with empty stomachs. That is Communism. Duke will attempt to show that the Jews were the masters of the ploy, and he has much to work with in that regard.

And:

'There were 217,061 workers employed in the coal industry in 1926-27. Production per man is still very low by western standards, though in the past two years it has increased 32 per cent. The monthly coal output per surface miner in the Donetz Basin in 1913 was 58.2 metric tons; in 1927-28 it was 62.1 metric tons. However, production per man for all workers was still below that of 1913, due to the reduction of working hours. In 1913 surface workers had a workday of 10 to 12 hours and underground men 8 to 10 hours. At present surface men have a workday of 8 hours and underground men 6 hours. Wages are double those of 1913, plus cheap rent, vacations with pay and social insurance'

www.marxists.org/history/ussr/government/1928/sufds/ch05.htm

'The labor efficiency has risen through better industrial processes and better machinery. Output per worker in the Soviet Union is still low by Western European standards, but it has been showing a healthy rate of advance. The advance has been aided by a campaign against absenteeism. In 1913 the days of actual work per worker in industry were 257. In the fiscal year 1921-22 they had fallen to 219.5. In 1926-27 they were 262.1.

On the other hand the length of the normal working day, which was 10 hours before the war, was reduced to 8 hours at the beginning of the Soviet régime, and for dangerous occupations to 6 hours. During 1926-27 the working day averaged 7.5 hours.'

www.marxists.org/history/ussr/government/1928/sufds/ch17.htm

AT the close of 1927 the output of Soviet industries was estimated at 10 per cent above pre-war, while the labor force was about equal to that of 1913. The gain in labor efficiency is the more marked when one considers that the length of the average working day has been reduced by about 25 per cent as compared with 1913.

Real wages for workers in industry in 1926-27 were about 1 per cent above those of 1913. This does not take account of the various additional benefits and services received gratis by the workers. As a charge upon the industries these benefits and services make an addition amounting to 32 per cent of the total payroll.

www.marxists.org/history/ussr/government/1928/sufds/ch17.htm

You can point to these statistics, and much of it is true I assume, but it was largely the result of industrialization. Any type of a revolutionary government could have pulled this off. I am not arguing that living standards under the Tzar were well, they were far from it.

These claims do come from Marxists.com so I will look more into it. Do the wages of the workers take into account the inflation of the Russian ruble, for example?

What you said was that workers worked more for less, which is false.

And yes, they do take into account inflation. That's what real wages are.

I will take your word for it, for now. Expect me to come prepared next time on any peculiarities in these statistics. I believe my point on industrialization still stands.

Industrialisation doesn't matter - that's a different topic.

It definitely matters as it is a catalyst for higher production, living standards, and pay. The question of the Soviet economy is how did it coincide with socialist policies?

The greatest advances in industry - the period in which the Union 'industrialised' - was during the beginnings of the socialist phase. It became the second largest economic power during this time. Other countries industrialised with little to no labour laws, and the USSR did it with the average working day being about 8 hours. Soviet development is unmatched.

Byposted, there's no evidence that communism is a Jewish ploy. You have circumstantial 'evidence' at best, but it means nothing, neither by itself or all together.

I don't like Duke that much.

I rather have those stuck up bastards in Europe actually get some fucking diversity so they will stop going "Hurr Durr, Americans are Racist"

Communism requires faith like all religions

Reply limit.

>We are nationalist, we don't forcefully seek to eliminate our enemies across nations but rather focus on home.
Enjoy your 'anarchist' society whilst other states exist.

>Absence of any free will or institution to challenge the notion.
Oh rubbish. Criticism was encouraged in the USSR, and was extraordinarily common.

>If you claim we are internationalist only in the regard of war, genocide, and imperialism than that is not sort of internationalism but rather war mongering.
I didn't make such a claim.

>You seek freedom for workers only because you've never run or owned a business because you have not used capitalism you do not understand it. And you are for oppression of human free will and the voluntary exchange of labor and goods.
I haven't 'used capitalism'? Jesus, you're moronic sometimes.

>Anarcho capitalism is not perfect but it is free.
Communism isn't perfect, but it's freer than anarcho-capitalism. Stateless, classless, moneyless, free access to the means of production...

>Oh rubbish. Criticism was encouraged in the USSR, and was extraordinarily common.
How. Would you allow Ayn Rand to speak?

Communism is the goal of socialism, communism needs to destroy all enemies. thus world domination.

That part is just showing your personal failures please take notice to the rest of the statement

capitalism requires you work for what you want but from this you can be all you can be rather than a looter in the house of a dead man

>How. Would you allow Ayn Rand to speak?
How? Through the press, within the party, throughout the entire country. Would we allow Ayn Rand to speak? If her criticism was constructive, yes.

'But it must not be assumed that the press is barren of criticism of the regime. Indeed, it is full of it--from Party meetings and in letters from the thousands of worker and peasant correspondents all over the Union. But it must all be helpful criticism, attacking bad DJ 4DM1Nistration or ill-advised regulations, and directed toward the upbuilding of Russia according to Soviet objectives.'
Baldwin, Roger. Liberty under the Soviets, New York: Vanguard Press, 1928, p. 152

>Communism is the goal of socialism, communism needs to destroy all enemies. thus world domination.
Er, communism is the goal of communism. Socialism can be a final goal in its own right. Communism will dominate the world in the sense that it will become the dominate mode of production. When do you plan on ending your demagoguery?

>That part is just showing your personal failures please take notice to the rest of the statement
Good job perpetuating false consciousness. Why even bother with the rest of the statement? I haven't 'used capitalism' and 'do not understand it'. Sigh, I'm against all forms of oppression and for the voluntary exchange of labour and goods, between individuals, insofar as it precedes the exploitation of labour of others.

>Capitalism requires you to work for what you want
And communism doesn't? Undeadwill, this is weak, even for you. 'From each according to their ability.'

The evidence provided is highly bias.

It has not dominated the world just as nationalist socialist hasn't. If anything we will both lose to the statist progressives.

You see labor as slavery despite payment for work and I feel that you may never see past that.

No yours is "Work or die" in then people really do become nothing more than a COG in the machine.

>You see labor as slavery despite payment for work and I feel that you may never see past that.

Sigh. Wage slavery.

>No yours is "Work or die" in then people really do become nothing more than a COG in the machine.
Not finished with the demagoguery, I see.

As we have described previously, free criticism, however hostile it may be, is permitted, even encouraged, in the USSR, of the directors of all forms of enterprise, by the workers employed, or by the consumers of the commodities or services concerned.
Webb, Sidney. The Truth about Soviet Russia. New York: Longmans, Green, 1942, p. 74

Moscow, August 16, 1930--although "free speech" and a "free press" in the western sense are unknown in Soviet Russia, Moscow newspapers are now indulging in such a loud chorus of complaints, rebukes, and pessimism as has probably not been equaled since Jeremiah was the "official spokesman" of Israel. To read the newspapers one would suppose the country was headed straight to perdition.
Duranty, Walter. Duranty Reports Russia. New York: The Viking Press, 1934, p. 369

Thus, side-by-side with all the self-praise and glorification I have mentioned, the Soviet press throughout the war period carried sharp criticisms of party and state officials. Over a period of months I collected literally hundreds of items of this nature, covering a wide variety of activity. Probably the most numerous reprimands and warnings were addressed to officials responsible for weaknesses in the production system.
Slipshod methods of harvesting, which resulted in great losses of grain, were continuously criticized in specific regions. Individual officials caught in the wrongful use or appropriation of state property were singled out as examples. Instances of losses due to poor packing and shipment of manufactured goods were frequently cited, and engineers responsible for waste of metals and materials were upbraided. Outright thefts of materials and embezzlement of funds were exposed and cases of bribery of state employees were frequently reported in the Government and party press.
Blockheadedness, indifference to duty, and evasion of responsibility by officials and bureaucrats were the subject of many editorials and newspaper stories, in which individuals and localities were often mentioned by name. The detail into which these criticisms enter is frequently surprising....
...Other town fathers were rebuked for failing to provide adequate living quarters, for inhuman bureaucracy, for falsifying reports, for neglecting improvements in the school system, and so on.
Snow, Edgar. The Pattern of Soviet Power, New York: Random House, 1945, p. 205

...Open criticism of different party branches for failure to accomplish their educational and organizational duties, in the rear and at the front, also, usually preceded or coincided with dismissals and new appointments. And from the extent of such criticism in the press it was evident that a process of change and reform was going on all the time.
Snow, Edgar. The Pattern of Soviet Power, New York: Random House, 1945, p. 207

Stalin continued his criticism of party leaders by discussing another familiar topic: the "verification of fulfillment of decisions."... Stalin stated, "There is still another kind of verification, the check-up from below, in which the masses, the subordinates, verify the leaders, pointing out their mistakes, and showing the way to correct them. This kind of verification is one of the most effective methods of checking up on people."
Stalin stated, "Some comrades say that it is not advisable to speak openly of one's mistakes, since the open admission of one's mistakes may be construed by our enemies as weakness and may be used by them.
This is rubbish, comrades, downright rubbish. The open recognition of our mistakes and their honest rectification can, on the contrary, only strengthen our party, raise its authority in the eyes of the workers, peasants, and working intellectuals.... And this is the main thing. As long as we have the workers, peasants, and working intellectuals with us, all the rest will settle itself."
Getty, A. Origins of the Great Purges. Cambridge, N. Y.: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1985, p. 146

And some more:

Of course, criticism had been strongly encouraged during the purges, and local records contain plenty of it. The press strongly endorsed criticism from below at the end of 1938.
Thurston, Robert. Life and Terror in Stalin's Russia, 1934-1941. New Haven: Yale University Press, c1996, p. 161

The regime regularly urged people to criticize local conditions as well as leaders, at least those below an exalted level.... Pravda went so far as to identify lack of criticism with enemies of the people: "Only an enemy is interested in saying that we, the Bolsheviks... do not notice actual reality.... Only an enemy... strives to put the rose-colored glasses of self-satisfaction over the eyes of our people." As the Zawodny materials and a mass of other evidence show, these calls were by no means merely a vicious sham that permitted only carefully chosen, reliable individuals to make "safe" criticisms.
Thurston, Robert. Life and Terror in Stalin's Russia, 1934-1941. New Haven: Yale University Press, c1996, p. 185

Everything requires faith..

Driving a road requires faith, walking down the road, leaving your house. They all require faith. Faith in the fact that you won't get hit by another car, run over, shot, stabbed, raped...

No it does.

Faith is not required of those things but rather desire, and free will. You walk down the street because you WANT (desire to get somewhere)

What you are talking about is hope. Not faith.

a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty
b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2
a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3
: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>


Eat shit.

Let's not engage in frivolous banter. This is purely semantics.

For now~

Faith:
Noun
Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

Hope:
Noun
A feeling of expectation and desire for a certain thing to happen.

I don't know about you, but when I leave my house I have "complete trust" and "confidence in" the fact that I will not be raped, or stabbed, or shot. While I desire it not to happen, I have faith in the fact that it will not happen.

1
: to cherish a desire with anticipation <hopes for a promotion>
2
archaic : trust
transitive verb
1
: to desire with expectation of obtainment
2
: to expect with confidence : trust


Faith is the act of putting belief in something without proof.
Hope is acknowledging the risks and proceeding.

Its a 5 second google search.

You're arguing semantics more than anything.

Faith, hope, they're essentially the same thing, with minor differences. Anyway, communism is no more of a religion than anarcho-capitalism.

....How are we a religion? There is no higher authority in anarcho capitalism other than the individual and ours is based on free will. If you are going to argue we "Worship" money or the free markets than no, we just see that both are more effective and logical approaches to industry and business.

Your system is based on the ideas that you are all one people and have more in common with the church than you realize. That each man is a slave to his neighbor.

1
: to cherish a desire with anticipation <hopes for a promotion>
2
archaic : trust
transitive verb
1
: to desire with expectation of obtainment
2
: to expect with confidence : trust

>Your system is based on the ideas that you are all one people
What do you even mean?

>That each man is a slave to his neighbor.
'Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means of such appropriations.'

You just answered your own question.

Unless you care to explain how, I don't believe I did.

'Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means of such appropriations.'

You keep everyone down so that every man is a slave to his neighbor. By denying everyone the right to trade or sell labor you make everyone a slave to their neighbor.

You have yet to prove that anarcho capitalism is religious in nature.

>deprive him of the power to subjugate ... others

I thought that was clear. How do you enslave someone if you actually can not?

>You have yet to prove that anarcho capitalism is religious in nature.

I never said it was.

By holding other back, you enslave everyone whether or not you are allowed to get ahead from this act of enslaving everyone is irrelevant.

You claim that the communist faith is no more a religion than my economic system of individualism.

No one's being held back. The only thing you cannot do is enslave others. If you think slavery is justified so long as someone can afford to purchase slaves, then this isn't really worth my time, is it?


>You claim that the communist faith is no more a religion than my economic system of individualism.

You never actually explained just how communism was a religion. Anyway, I stated that communism was no more of a religion than anarcho-capitalism - because neither are religions.

We have been over this the free trade of labor for resources is not slavery. Slavery means you own that person which you just can't claim in today's society.

On political charts religions from Buddhism and Christianity both score on the collectivist side along side communists.

These are some posts I've made on the subject.

Communism is a religion like Buddhism, or Confucianism. No god a but more of philosophy disguising itself as a economic policy but in reality it is no different than many other religious in its nature, it believes that suffering make you great, that greed is evil, that selfishness of any king is evil. It tries to eliminate any other faiths because their holy book says that it is the opium of the people. Believe in the Jihad, crusade but they use the word "Revolution". It leads to a all powerful state ruling as a god till "Judgement day" when all of the nonbelievers (Capitalists) were killed off. Then they engage in "True" communism that is akin to HEAVEN. Communism is a religion plain and simple.

Because communism is a religion disguised as a economic system that plays off a worker's misguided anger but is another bit of twisted morality like every other religion of altruism.
It follows the same guide lines
One other gods before me (Which is why they seek to destroy all the other religions that would harm their faith and side track it.)
Love thy neighbor
Etc.
And have a revolution (Crusade Jihad what ever word works best) to share its "truth"

It wants to share the "truth" of its word with the world whether they want it or now. and when you question it they react the same manner of "You just don't get it"

Before anyone says "Well we don't believe in a god" Neither did Confucianism or Buddhism both were life philosophies.

Hell it even as a heaven and hell. Hell is imperialism and heaven is that final stateless, moneyless, classless society.

Then in what way does communism mean that man is enslaved by his neighbour? You're the one that brought up slavery in the first place.

>that greed is evil, that selfishness of any king is evil.
So are all forms of morality a religion?

>It tries to eliminate any other faiths because their holy book says that it is the opium of the people
It opposes religion because it is the opium of the people. It opposes other ideologies because they're dangerous - you know, the way Germany outlaws Nazism, because it's dangerous.

>Believe in the Jihad, crusade but they use the word "Revolution"
So, capitalism is a religion? What, you think the bourgeoisie didn't take control during a revolution? Is industry a religion because of the Industrial Revolution?

> It leads to a all powerful state ruling
Because states don't rule now?

In capitalism society*

Imposed morality is basis of all religions.

"I have to kill you because you don't agree that my faith is a faith of peace"

To claim industry is faith because of a revolution in technology is to say the existence of worship of a fire god and a wheel god. You can not sit there and smugly make an illogical connection to an revolution of technology to that of one

It leads to an absolute fascist state because of the destruction of all of the other means of power that the people can take hold of.

What?

And you're looking to impose a morality, too. Well, to be fair, you're looking to maintain a moral system - bourgeois morality.

I never indicated a support such a thing. Just like there's no one that advocates a return to feudalism, there will be no one who advocates a return to capitalism.

But you can make smug and illogical connections to socialist revolutions being equal to the Crusades?

What rubbish. It leads to a stateless society, and does not inherently lead to a fascist state.

>when all of the nonbelievers (Capitalists) were killed off.
Rather, when false consciousness has been eliminated, the entire world has achieved socialism, and then the process of the withering away of the state takes place.

>disguised as a economic system
It is an economic system...

> plays off a worker's misguided anger
Xenophobia would is more akin to misguided anger. Good thing we're internationalists.

>It wants to share the "truth" of its word with the world whether they want it or no[t].
Like anarcho-capitalists.

>Hell it even as a heaven and hell
Heaven is utopian - we're not utopians.

So basically when everyone else is killed off.

No its a collectivist system that requires the absence

No you are not internationalist, in any positive sense of the word, you want just want world domination you care not for the existence of others so long as they bow to the will of communism

We share the truth of freedom you of oppression and a misguided equality.

You make communism sound like your heaven.

Because the bourgeoisie physically eliminated everyone who didn't accept bourgeois ideology, right? No, rather people came to accept it.

The absence of what?

Wow, that might be a good argument, provided you have any evidence. Too bad you don't.

You perpetuate bourgeois ideology and false consciousness.

You make anarcho-capitalism sound like yours.

We are nationalist, we don't forcefully seek to eliminate our enemies across nations but rather focus on home.

Absence of any free will or institution to challenge the notion.

If you claim we are internationalist only in the regard of war, genocide, and imperialism than that is not sort of internationalism but rather war mongering.

You seek freedom for workers only because you've never run or owned a business because you have not used capitalism you do not understand it. And you are for oppression of human free will and the voluntary exchange of labor and goods.

Anarcho capitalism is not perfect but it is free.

How do you pronounce that name, because I'm pronouncing it boner. Ha. Boner.

bay-ner

Well that was less fun then I thought it would be, no matter, on the actual topic it really depends on if or not these labourers are skilled, or if they're filling in a gap in the market or what, by making them citizens it makes minimum wage laws apply to them (in theory) so this is going to have more kick then they're thinking, or they're aware of it and looking the other way like many things in the American Government,.

As far as I know, skilled workers are able to immigrate fairly easily; it's the unskilled workers who are forced to come through illegally. I agree with the minimum wage part. These immigrants will be left unemployed so they'll be competing with citizens ( who are eligible for welfare) so more will be left on government assistance and further ruin the government spending problem. Even if their income is taxed to increase revenue, this extra revenue will only cause the government to increase spending on other things just because they can. Big government = big problem.

I agree with this.
It's high time we made a stand against these sick fucks, all for one and one for all.
To bring down the atrocity that is the FJCP.
To bring down child porn in Funny Junk.
... That's what we're fighting right?

Don't say that, I think my folder at ASIO is big enough without that degernerate material.

This is mostly caused by the fact that Oxan didn't invite me to his birthday party though

If you makes you feel any better, I never have parties.

Would you like to come to hygge on Friday?

I'm going to a wedding, actually

kinda lame but my uncle is fucking awesome

also no money to get to australia

Dangit.

I don't have parties either

I forgot I was 17 at one point because I did virtually nothing, and my friend had to remind me

I've never been a fan of parties. I think I've been to about three in my life. One of them I played Fallout in my friend's room for most of the night.

My brother had a bunch of friends over during the week when my parents were gone. It was awful because everyone made a mess and tracked dirt in the house. My parents were using the time as a "trial run" to see if I could stay alone (I want to stay alone in new york this summer) and I basically had to scrub everything and clean everything all week because he had them over more than once

it was the worst. Fuck parties

If you want!

(Hey, I get to use this gif again!)

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

This is the best thing ever.

Opposition in my our party, get the guns we can't have this sectarian non-sense.

We were never a part of your party, good sir.

At least I wasn't.

Also I was counting to see how long it would take for the word sectarian to pop up. I am not disappointed.

Well, I kind of like belonging to things...

understandable

What are you gonna do, purge us? What if we purge you instead? Unless... we can't purge, because purging is for filthy stalinists... can we purge, Arisaka?

If the Enragés allow it!

Why do you call it "opposition to the fjcp"?
If the FJCP dies then so would this party because there would no longer be anything to oppose.

We're not a party.

Because they're a lot more libertarian (In means at least, technically we're all libertarian in ends) then the rest of us I think.

I'm going to let my comrade do all the talking now because I have to go outside and do some gardening

That video was taken him on a campaign tour, where he visited 20 cities in 7 days

Wut.

I'm watching a documentary

Still, didn't you mean to reply to a different comment?

It was above me a moment ago.

I Research it

Sweet. I haven't been to this board in years...I kinda thought it got deleted. Anyways I noticed a numerous amount of commies (I guess I have no problem with personally). I heard that they aren't that liberal as it seems. And that they hate jews and multiculturalism as well. Does this happen to be true?

We don't hate Jews. We don't like Zionists, because we don't like any nationalist, but there's working class Jews. Why would we hate them?

They think jews are scapegoats
that tells enought of how mutch they know

Haha, really? Don't they know of the jewish agenda? The true face of israel? The strings jews pull behind the innocent facade? Stuff like that. And may I ask what your political standpoint is?

They cant see throught the Deception and lies thats why they also follow a jew made politcal idealogy promishing ethopia but in reality is a slavery system wich jews will exploit
lol a while ago i dumped a shitload of facts in some puppet its face and he sed its coincidence going full commie as in 'the rich is keeping us down'
like here
www.funnyjunk.com/politics/34368#34368

but honesty im happy for them knowing all this stuff is fucked up stuff what the zionists have going on

i'm Fascist
One of the only politcal idealogys wich isnt created by a yid

Ohh god, the stupidity, it burns. I hate you not because of your beliefs, but because you leave them open for easily manipulable people to follow. The irony in the whole we control the people when really that's what you are trying to do...

Stfu you anti-semetic fuking fascist

>Stfu you anti-semetic fuking fascist
Namecalling

btw to clear things up its Not the whole jewish community who controls shit but the zionist/internationalist/elite jews who dont give one single fuck about lower class poor ones who are pretty mutch theire favorite puppets to use
youtu.be/VBuVf0wdAkI

Awesome! Liberal Fascist. But....I just honestly don't know anymore. Its gotten extremely complicated being a fascist. I guess mainly due to my race (afro-american). But I shouldn't really let that hinder me...should I?

Not at all if you are a Black Nationalist and like Malcom-x more then kike puppet of a martin luther king then your good in my book

In fascism race is more of a spirutal feel and not a biological thing like in national socialism so there is no problem at all

Liberal fascist eh? What kind of liberalism? Neo-liberalism (progesives?) or the original liberalism?

Hmmm...I suppose Neoliberalism

Neoliberalism is free market economics, small state, deregulated market, open trade and democracy

ah mistake thanks for clearly that up

Alrighty I'm almost calling troll, or perhaps ignorant of the fact neoliberalism and fascism can't mix.

Well, I lean more towards neo, than classical. So ultimately...I'm neo. I nearly completely ignore social aspect to both neo and classical. And find it quite annoying that America really only cares about the social aspect.

so wait...
Cultural-fascism with Neo-liberal goverment orrr...?

Ultimately that's what I am.

well im okay with it
Reminds me of old Christian America before WW1

You're gonna need a big government to even have cultural facism, as well as to regulate the market to benefit ethnicity x, as well to bloat the MI complex to actually conquer smaller countries, fascism really isn't compatible with anything liberal.

Cultural-fascism is a natural basic of humans so no big goverment needed its more of a Natural state of mind of a tribe wich has pride from succes
Strong social roles
Tribalism
Strong leader
<pic related

>Implying facism is all about reactonary imperialism
who is Oswald Mosley

Cultural Marxism is basically a big joke, you know what? It has almost nothing to do with Marx...

its still pushed by the frankfurt school and higly noticble at American universitys

The 'Cultural' marxism propogated by the Frankfurt School is completely Valid. ANYTHING said by the Frankfurt School, except maybe a few select things written by Adorno, are valid. More valid than any silly fascist metaphysics.

What you are talking about is some bastardized liberal bullshit.

Thank you, Arisaka. I doubt he'll remember. I think I told him that last time.

The fascist economic system relies on a country going to war constantly, war is good for the economy, it thins the labour force and creates a massive demand for goods which employs massive amounts of people, fascists use war to keep the economy going smoothly and to expand their living space and resource pool, they usually do this by nationalizing core industries or having them under strict control saying they must produce x you can't have this with liberalism it's a core aspect of fascism.

Funny thing

so does soviet style socialism!

True verry True
But he sed ''I nearly completely ignore social aspect to both neo and classical''
wich means he dismissed the Liberal social aspects of the idealogy and only the govermental aspects
wich takes liberalism as his idealogy for goverment and as remaining thing he has ''fascism'' wich fils the social aspect

Yeah but decentralizing power into a parliament makes it harder for everyone to properly be submissive under the state, something else required by fascism

You guys remind me of my friend myles, who once told me he couldn't decide if he was a stalinist or a fascist.

Spiritual and socially its Centrilized towards the Leader and also decentralized for the attention to own communitiesof the Nation and Decentralized if it's about economics,work so on so on

fascism is defined as the merging of the state and corporate power so uhhhh

its pro-interventionist on a Militaristic way or a economic way

Ha, sorry that's hilarious.

I feel like this sums up a major issue with Politics where people keep trying to simplify a complex issue and that just causes further problems with producing misinterpretation on the matter and then producing a faulty solution.

Like how people think issues are as easy as "Yes/No", and whichever one seems good to them is the best solution.

who is this guy?

I just looked through the board and i cant find him.

Homer Simpson.

Or that. It could be that.

If you're talking about the author of the quote, that would be me.

youtu.be/5hfEBupAeo4

ever heard the story about the american officer who led a NATO division during the cold war who ordered a british officer to attack an airport that was occupied by russian forces?

The british officer responded "I'm not going to start WW3 for you" and refused.

The american officer was Clark.

That asshat preaching about senseless wars almost sent us into nuclear war over a fucking airport.

Typical hypocrisy from the democrats.

Yeah I've heard of that, wasn't it in the Yugoslav wars (Kosovo if I remember rightly)? and I remember hearing a similar story about James blunt and how he told the Americans to fuck off.

it was general jackson who have blunt the go ahead to refuse the order.

and they told one american general to fuck off,the vast majority of american officers were level headed about incidents such as this.

Clark is a glory hound,he wont be remembered like storming norman and McChystal.

Clark is a talking head for the democratic party,always has been,always will be.

He's not the first person I would go to when im looking for a non biased reason for the wars.

only really got this one, should probably do the others

"You are a orthodox marxist, 0% of the test taker also fall into this category and 95% are more extremist than you."
This was surprising.

On a second thought, putting one graph inside another might've been a stupid idea.

I was confused for a while.

At least it saves some space.

add me, it fills nicely the empty place

Can you add me?

Very good. Got the other one at all?

wut

I swear there was another compilation which included other people, like myself..

ye that was kanade, i would make one for the politics board seeing as that one was for the religion board but more people would have to post.

Ah. Gotcha. I might do that at the end of this thread.

I still don't know how I'm fundamentalist...

How about Switzerland and scandinavian countries?

Didn't Sweden have nationalist riots recently?

If it did, I wasn't aware of it.

Australia. People are content to have Labor destroyed and let Liberal win. Then Rudd will become the leader of Labor, and Labor will win the following election.

could it be a fellow ausfag

It could be!

Could it be a new addition to the politics board?

THE AUSSIES ARE TRYING TO TAKING OVER, PREPARE THE PENAL COLONY SHIPS, GOTTA SEND THEM SOMEWHERE REMOTE AND HOT.

Yes, somewhere remote and hot, isolated from the rest of the world. Perhaps a large island, one that could be easily used as a massive prison...

It could be incredibly cold, and dry it's got to be somewhere where they're surrounded by water as well.

Agreed. But what would one call a place like that?

Austra- I got it we'll ditch them in the Antarctic, there they can perform grueling work of taking up ice cores and chasing penguins into circles.

If global warming continues, we may not need to move at all!

it could very well be

Well, politic compass?

Here's my out of date one.

also, nice lenin pic

Well, since you're left wing, the rest of us are:

JewishCommieNazi, whom is a democratic socialist or a Luxemburgist. I'm not sure anymore.
Valeriya and Levchenko are Stalinist.
Arsaka is a libertarian Marxist
Naxo and I are Leninists.
And I believe that's us...

I'd say democratic socialist, but that basically incorporates almost all forms of socialism so it's not very specific.

I thought Levchenko was trotskyist or just leninist.

Leninist

Are you closer to trotskyism or stalinism?

trotsky

I'm losing track of everyone! D:

I don't know what he is, but he posted a Trotsky quote, so I doubt he's stalinist.

Ah. Maybe he's like Naxo and I. I quote both Stalin and Trotsky!