brilliant

Is this the nightmare you have every night Netrunner?

The man speaks the truth!... ya'll better get out there and vote damnit!

Hey if I vote for McCain and YOU vote for Obama, then our votes will just cancel out. I guess we better just stay home then.

>> ^uzema:
Hey if I vote for McCain and YOU vote for Obama, then our votes will just cancel out. I guess we better just stay home then.


Good idea. Stay home. I promise I'll do the same.

Really.

I doubt at McCains age he can even ride a bike.

But it's a good message. Canada and the rest of the world (except Albania) is counting on you to elect Obama.

Canada should have built a fence.

its fun to pretend your making a difference

Changing the world with cynicism and bitterness... one post at a time...

Keep up the good work Instellar...

I am personally very dissappointed about not getting to vote... now you just have me wishing i could downvote as well... thats just about the first time i've wanted to...

>> ^Januari:
Changing the world with cynicism and bitterness... one post at a time...
Keep up the good work Instellar...
I am personally very dissappointed about not getting to vote... now you just have me wishing i could downvote as well... thats just about the first time i've wanted to...


There there, I don't think that's such a bad advice to give... to people who are thinking of voting for McCain.

Looks like they've downsized the Straight Talk Express, huh?

*fear

Adding video to channels (Fear) - requested by blahpook.

>> ^Januari:
Changing the world with cynicism and bitterness... one post at a time...

I'm not cynical or bitter, nor am I trying to change the world; I'm making a pointed political criticism. If you are going to vote for Obama...go into it with the truth, don't play pretend and make believe that you are making "positive change". If you favor socialism, fine. But admit it. Stop trying to make your sh*t sandwich look appetizing by putting garnishes on it--accept it for what it is.

"Socialism you can believe in"

And more importantly, stop trying to sell your sh*t sandwich as a non-sh*t sandwich.

Sure told me... doesn't sound at all bitter...

>> ^imstellar28:
>> ^Januari:
Changing the world with cynicism and bitterness... one post at a time...
I'm not cynical or bitter, nor am I trying to change the world; I'm making a pointed political criticism. If you are going to vote for Obama...go into it with the truth, don't play pretend and make believe that you are making "positive change". If you favor socialism, fine. But admit it. Stop trying to make your sh t sandwich look appetizing by putting garnishes on it--accept it for what it is.
"Socialism you can believe in"
And more importantly, stop trying to sell your sh t sandwich as a non-sh t sandwich.


Ayn Rand was a Nazi-fucking whore.

A shit sandwich is what we've gotten from conservative values being dominant in this country for 30 years.

Only someone who's lost their objectivity says the problem is that we haven't yet gone right enough.

Back to Rand though -- she got to experience the horrors of Communist Russia. I don't really blame her for deciding, thenceforth, that anything even slightly like Russia was evil.

Problem is, she had a psychological imbalance on the topic of government, pure and simple.

I could forgive it if it weren't for all the fuckwads like you who felt inspired by her delusions.

From your perspective, you've already lost this election. Both candidates are raving socialists by your definition, in the same sense that New Hampshire is a "southern" state to Sarah Palin.

However, no one new has taken office yet, Bush is still President, and we can both agree that he's a big fat shit sandwich. Start the grieving process now, and take a taste of the new sandwich you're about to be offered. If you don't like it, you can in fact exercise your freedom and leave this country for a better one, if you can find one.

If you don't like it, and choose to keep living here in the heartland of socialism, at least stop trying to spread your misery over the fact that you can't seem to win people over to your way of thinking.

>> ^imstellar28:
...sh*t sandwich... sh*t sandwich...non-sh*t sandwich.



its ok. you can swear on the internet. your mommy probably isn't going to read it...

^NetRunner,

1. I've read two books by Rand. Two. I haven't even read atlas shrugged. Why are you pegging me as a devout follower? It has nothing to do with "right or "left" and everything to do with "right" and "wrong"

2. I haven't "lost" this election. America lost this election. American politics/economics don't even directly impact my life, it impacts American's lives. The only reason I even care about politics/economics is because of my friends/family who don't have the same choices I do.

Socialists,

There are a lot of people in this country who deserve the consequences of the economy and government that they are advocating (many frequent this board) but there are also a lot of people who don't deserve it. F*ck your diseased philosophy, f*ck your majority oppression. I'm not going to swallow the sh*t you're selling. I'm going to be the voice for the minority you seek to silence; I'm going to defend the rights of humans you would wantonly trample on.

If you don't like people interfering with your business of fraud and deceit, then stop selling lies.

>> ^imstellar28:
I've read two books by Rand. Two. I haven't even read atlas shrugged. Why are you pegging me as a devout follower?

Well, because you say things like this:

F ck your diseased philosophy, f ck your majority oppression. I'm not going to swallow the sh t you're selling. I'm going to be the voice for the minority you seek to silence; I'm going to defend the rights of humans you would wantonly trample on.

So you want to impose your ideals on others, without winning a majority of support, because you think you're helping human rights. Rights which essentially consist of the right to never receive government aid, and the right for those who pay taxes to pay none.

Great. That's a lovely set of morals ya got there. You'd be more at home in the Republican party than you'd otherwise think.

Tell me, is altruism a good thing, a bad thing, or the worst thing?

Is selfishness a good thing, a bad thing, or the best thing?

It's one thing to talk about the pragmatic benefits of a smaller government, it's a wholly different thing to think yourself morally superior for nursing an intention to alter the government of your country through anti-democratic means to fit your own worldview.

Screaming at us about how you think we're shitburgers just makes you look crazed and angry, not wise and morally superior.

maybe if he took his own advice?

don't forget to downvote this comment too, stellar.

NetRunner,

1. By the way, why are you defaming someone who died almost 40 years ago? If she was alive today, would you have the courage to say what you're saying if you met her?

2. I'm not imposing anything on anyone, how could I? My philosophy explictly forbids violence, while your philosophy explicitly requires it.

3. Altruism is an ideal which rarely manifests itself in reality. People pretend they are altruistic because they think it is a virtue. It is not. Those who pretend to be good are frauds, and worse than those who are bad but honest. You don't appear to be "altruistic"--you just want to force others to be "altruistic". Selfishness is a good thing. You wouldn't be breathing if your genes (and your ancestors they drove) weren't selfish.

4. I am not concerned with my demeanor because you (and others) will think I am crazed just because of the beliefs I hold, regardless of the manner in which I convey them. Case in point, you consider Ayn Rand to have a psychological imbalance when I am aware of no public instances when she has failed to be articulate and polite. She disagrees with your opinion, and writes entire books explaining why you are wrong, and all you can muster is "she is mentally ill"


This entire argument comes down to the answer to a single question "Do you believe it is moral to initiate violence against another human being" . My answer is no.

Socialism is not possible without the initiation of violence. If thats what you want, fine, but don't pretend you have the moral high ground because you are robbing houses in order to donate to a cancer fund. You aren't altruistic, noble, moral, or good--you are just another tyrant who uses violence as a means to their ends.

>> ^my15minutes:
maybe if he took his own advice?
don't forget to downvote this comment too, stellar.


I downvoted because your assessment is incorrect, I am not taking personal offense to attacks on a dead philosopher.

^ ha! your recent comments and downvote spree indicate otherwise.
or was my assessment of communism incorrect too? this one?

oh, and try to keep your reply shorter than usual? thanks.
not looking for 6 paragraphs on communism here. don't really give a shit.

I just love it when people go around telling everyone their beliefs and ideas are shit... and then claim they are the voice of reason and open mindedness...

You know i said something to begin with because this is the childish mentality i would have expected form someone like QM... while i don't agree with much of what we've discussed... and articles you've shown me in the past... It would never even occur to me to call your opinions 'shit' and dismiss them...

>> ^imstellar28:
NetRunner,
I'm not imposing anything on anyone, how could I? My philosophy explictly forbids violence, while your philosophy explicitly requires it.


Oh dear, I must have missed the last, what is it now, 5 years of war against a country that didn't do anything to your capitalist democratic society.

Your philosophy is deluded...

ps. Australia is a left of center democratic-socialist nation. The only wars we get involved in were WW1&2, Vietnam (at America's behest), Iraq/Kuwait (at America's behest), Afghanistan (at America's behest).

This is the thing I love about the anti-socialist movement in the US, you are all still terrified of the red fucking menace coming out from under the beds that you've convinced yourself that anything vaguely associated with the left/communism = bad.


3. Altruism is an ideal which rarely manifests itself in reality. People pretend they are altruistic because they think it is a virtue. It is not. Those who pretend to be good are frauds, and worse than those who are bad but honest. You don't appear to be "altruistic"--you just want to force others to be "altruistic". Selfishness is a good thing. You wouldn't be breathing if your genes (and your ancestors they drove) weren't selfish.


Yes yes, black is white, up is down, we get it. Everything "noble" about humans is evil, yadda yadda.

Does anyone still actually believe in this crock of shit?


4. I am not concerned with my demeanor because you (and others) will think I am crazed just because of the beliefs I hold, regardless of the manner in which I convey them. Case in point, you consider Ayn Rand to have a psychological imbalance when I am aware of no public instances when she has failed to be articulate and polite. She disagrees with your opinion, and writes entire books explaining why you are wrong, and all you can muster is "she is mentally ill"


No, I don't think your crazed because of your beliefs, I think you're crazed because you can't manage to be "articulate and polite"...


This entire argument comes down to the answer to a single question "Do you believe it is moral to initiate violence against another human being" . My answer is no.


So you're telling me African's were brought to America by socialists? That the Native American's were dispossessed of their land and murdered by socialists? That the planet is being raped of it's natural resources to supply the all consuming might of the socialist nation of the USA..?

You are wrong. That is all... =)



Socialism is not possible without the initiation of violence. If thats what you want, fine, but don't pretend you have the moral high ground because you are robbing houses in order to donate to a cancer fund. You aren't altruistic, noble, moral, or good--you are just another tyrant who uses violence as a means to their ends.


el oh el.

You're like the morons who believed the world was flat. You haven't lived under socialism, you have no idea whether it works in theory, and you're terrified of it because, like it or not, it's coming.

Oh hang on, the US has had socialism for years.. =P Subsidies and tariff protections for US wheat and sugar, oil subsidies so you can fuel up at under 4USD per gallon while in Britan, for example, they pay over 10USD a gallon. Any "incentive", grant or other shot of public money squirted in to private concerns = socialism.

So roll over and smell the red mate, because you're balls deep in it with the rest of the country, you're just too blind and stupid to realise it...

Volunteer at the polls on election day.....is that so they can delete the votes for McCain?

Just dropping in to say Asmo's a fucking retard. Toodles.

Is that McCain looming in my airspace?

>> ^imstellar28:
^NetRunner,
I'm going to defend the rights of humans you would wantonly trample on.


Rights like:

1) The right to a fair a speedy trial.
2) The right to an attorney.
3) The right to know charges against you if you're being detained.
4) The right to privacy.
5) The right to choose.

*sigh*

I don't understand how you neocons can pick and choose from the bill of rights, only selecting the ones that meet your worldview. All the amendments are important.

>> ^imstellar28:
its fun to pretend your making a difference


Like prayer.

Seems to me that a lot of people here can't tell the difference between socialism and communism. USA, while a pretty libertarian country, has plenty of socialistic policies, but certainly not full-blown socialism. I live in scandinavia, where we have even more socialistic policies (waaay more), but we are not a socialist country.

I don't think the socialistic ideals work, but many of the ideas work just fine. Altruism is a virtue, if we want it to be. I don't think there exists such a thing as true altruism, there is always some form of payback to the altruistic person, which is what drives him. In the end all altruists are also egoists, but that doesn't matter. What do we care about his motives? As long as it appears as altruism, that's good enough for most of us.

my15minutes: the foundation of communism is collectivism. the abolition of private property is a corollary.

januari : if i walk into a field of cows and exclaim "theres sh*t everywhere" am i closed minded or lacking reason? how is this any different?

asmo: you don't deserve articulate and polite. you deserve a dunce hat and a chair in the corner. don't worry i'm sure it wont be lonely as you have just shown you can easily put words in other peoples mouths. just pretend theres a face behind those words who actually wants to talk to a dunce.

ridesallyridenc: you don't even know the basis for what you list, so you are in no position to speak of human rights. the men who wrote those words knew very clear the foundation of what they had created. you do not. you are merely riding the coattails of your forebears.

gwiz665: i have no problem with voluntary altruism (in fact i encourage it). the only type of altruism i speak out against is the forced variety. it is not altruism if you are forced to help others with physical violence. altruism has a desirable place in a social philosophy, and no place in a system of law.

Lol the dude fell off his bicurcle and the other guy won wooooo!

>> ^imstellar28:
1. By the way, why are you defaming someone who died almost 40 years ago? If she was alive today, would you have the courage to say what you're saying if you met her?
2. I'm not imposing anything on anyone, how could I? My philosophy explictly forbids violence, while your philosophy explicitly requires it.
3. Altruism is an ideal which rarely manifests itself in reality. People pretend they are altruistic because they think it is a virtue. It is not. Those who pretend to be good are frauds, and worse than those who are bad but honest. You don't appear to be "altruistic"--you just want to force others to be "altruistic". Selfishness is a good thing. You wouldn't be breathing if your genes (and your ancestors they drove) weren't selfish.
4. I am not concerned with my demeanor because you (and others) will think I am crazed just because of the beliefs I hold, regardless of the manner in which I convey them. Case in point, you consider Ayn Rand to have a psychological imbalance when I am aware of no public instances when she has failed to be articulate and polite. She disagrees with your opinion, and writes entire books explaining why you are wrong, and all you can muster is "she is mentally ill"

This entire argument comes down to the answer to a single question "Do you believe it is moral to initiate violence against another human being" . My answer is no.
Socialism is not possible without the initiation of violence. If thats what you want, fine, but don't pretend you have the moral high ground because you are robbing houses in order to donate to a cancer fund. You aren't altruistic, noble, moral, or good--you are just another tyrant who uses violence as a means to their ends.


1. Debate technique, pure and simple. Pushing your buttons, since you were trying to push mine (and many others'). I'm not sure what I'd say to Rand if I had a chance to meet her, but I think I'd phrase it as a question, whatever it was. "Don't you think it's possible your philosophy is a major psychological reaction to your childhood?", possibly.

2. Perhaps it's a bit of a strawman argument on my part. When you say "fuck democracy" in the context of a general rant about some extreme ideology, it makes me think about people like Timothy McVeigh, not Patrick Henry. To get to where you want to go, you either need to get 1000 times more persuasive and use "majority oppression" to get your ideology implemented, or start a revolution the old-fashioned way, with guns. Otherwise you're just being a pissant.

3. Where does the altruistic desire come from, if not from our genes? That said, you claim that my pushing for more government projects to aid the poor & middle class is not altruistic? Why? Because you see all government action as "force" or "slavery"? It's not my problem you're crazy. That said, I think I'd benefit directly from things like a middle-class tax cut, and government healthcare plans, and indirectly from aid given to the poor. Maybe I'm just appropriately selfish, and insufficiently fundamentalist about market economics for you.

4. Psychological imbalance doesn't necessarily mean she rants and raves and calls people's beliefs shitburgers, or the people themselves cows, though it can manifest itself that way too. I'll confess to being rather psychologically imbalanced myself -- take a look at those posts people have shared about their "Personal top 10" channels. Mine's very different from other people's, and skewed hard towards politics. It doesn't mean I'm incapable of being polite, or stringing together coherent sentences, it just means I'm not very balanced in what I'm interested in. I hope I'll get a little more balanced once this damnned election is finally done, though.

As to your closing argument, you're assuming your premise. It's not about initiation of violence, it's about enforcing a contract.

You are (I assume) a citizen of the United States. You may have been made one automatically by birth, but you can rescind that at any time, and leave. In short, you participate in our government by voluntary contract, and enforcing contracts seems to be a government action you libertarians like, even if violence is necessary.

Socialism is perfectly fine, in your view, if it's done by voluntary contract, right? Or do you espouse a belief that government should regulate economic activity to exclude socialistic communes...like city governments?

I don't use violence any more than you do, I also just speak my mind, and work within the existing system to try to make the things I want happen. You want to destroy the system itself, and that's pretty violent in my mind.

>> ^imstellar28:
the foundation of communism is collectivism. the abolition of private property is a corollary.

The abolition of private land property should be one of the first acts toward a communist or stateless society.

From wikipedia's entry on the communist manifesto:
10 Planks of the Communist Manifesto

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c., &c.

See the thing that starts with 1? The abolition of private property (i.e. land ownership) IS collectivism. Collectivism means collective ownership. You can't collectively own a factory but not the property it's built on. Well you can, but you would be dangerously inconsequential. A "communist State" is in fact an oxymoron. The State is only there as a representative of the collective to arrange the conditions necessary for the establishment of the ultimately stateless society, otherwise known as communist society. Of course such concentration of power, even though "temporary", is a prime target for megalomaniac tyrants.

But then again, if Ayn Rand is your only source on communism, it's no wonder you don't understand anything.

You know i think I see where I went wrong...

I came here because while i have all this down time, i'd be able to discuss issues like this, learn new opinions and perhaps form and reform some of my own...

If I had known from the begining that you, random internet guy, were the begining and the end of all knowledge and conversation on the subject... and all other opinions are as you say 'shit'. Think of all the time i could have saved, or wasted by continueing to read and listen. I just feel so lucky now that i've been 'set' on the right path... and i can just accept your correctitude without having to think any on my own...

My bad...

NetRunner: I do not believe you are altruistic because in the absence of government taxation, you have stated that you would not be motivated to give to charity because there would be no tax benefit in doing so. In order to get "some of the goods" you are, however, more than happy to force taxation upon others in order to reap a portion of what they sow (free healthcare, free education, etc.) I would not label that altruism. If I am forced to leave the country or enter into a "voluntary contract" thats not really a voluntary contract is it? If I do not enter into the "voluntary contract" of a SSN, I cannot fly on planes, have a bank account, or many other services. These restrictions are put into place by force, and are an initiation of violence. If I own land, I cannot freely fish or hunt on it without entering into a "voluntary contract" with the government. If I do, I will be put in jail. These examples, and more, are all initiations of violence by other individuals. On what authority can one person force another to leave the country or sign a "voluntary contract"? Remember, the government is not a real entity, it is a collection of individuals.

Bidouleroux: I understand what I'm saying because I have worked through these concepts myself. You don't understand what you are saying because you simply copy and paste search results from google. That is a very difficult way to become truly knowledgeable. Collectivism does not mean collective ownership. Collective ownership means collective ownership. Which is again, a corollary of a fundamental philosophy. Collectivism is the philosophy of community rights.

Januari: if you are trying to reform/form opinions you are in the wrong place. that place is called "the library" not "the internet". yes you can do it here, but you can also fit a cow through a keyhole. possible, but lots of work. why not just open the door? if your honest goal is knowledge, you should seek to swap book lists with people, not opinions. i'm always looking for a good book to read, and i've got plenty of good ones to recommend.

I cannot believe I read all the way to the end of this page. Holy crap, folks.

>> ^gorillaman:
Just dropping in to say Asmo's a fucking retard. Toodles.


Well reasoned and communicated argument, if a bit lacking on actual points... \= |

Let me respond in kind: Enjoy a socialist leaning president fucktard!

>> ^imstellar28:

asmo: you don't deserve articulate and polite. you deserve a dunce hat and a chair in the corner. don't worry i'm sure it wont be lonely as you have just shown you can easily put words in other peoples mouths. just pretend theres a face behind those words who actually wants to talk to a dunce.


Again, no substantive refuting of my points.

But hey, I don't have a buttload of oil in my backyard so I guess I don't have to worry about a US task force invading and forcing me to like the way your country is doing things. X D

Did you ever stop to ask yourself, in a country where apparently so many people think socialism is a bad idea and capitalism and free market are such great things, why the US is in such a mess at the moment?

I'm betting the answer is either "no" or "hyuk, I fucks my sistah!"

Don't worry about answering seriously, I wouldn't want to make you look less capable of holding up your end of a debate than the "dunce"... =)

>> ^imstellar28:
NetRunner: I do not believe you are altruistic because in the absence of government taxation, you have stated that you would not be motivated to give to charity because there would be no tax benefit in doing so. In order to get "some of the goods" you are, however, more than happy to force taxation upon others in order to reap a portion of what they sow (free healthcare, free education, etc.) I would not label that altruism.

I was trying to be honest about donations, frankly. If I were "free" of taxes, it wouldn't amount to that much more in my pocket, and I'd probably have to spend that "extra" money on services to take up the slack left by the FDA, the EPA, and I'd probably stop trusting banks without the FDIC (especially right now). That's kinda beside the point though, because your general idea is to encourage people to be more selfish, and to eschew altruism, and calling me out for not being altruistic seems like it undermines your argument.

I do think I'm altruistic, if perhaps a bit lazy about it. I'm not voting for Obama because I need a tax cut or government health care (though I'd be happy to have them), it's because I want more people to get good educations, because I want torture to stop, I want the environment protected, and I want to know that those less fortunate than me can get health care too.

I think government can address those things on a scale far larger than my own personal donation can, so I'm pushing for a change in government. If McCain wins, I probably will be selfish again, and use my money to leave the country rather than try to take up the slack directly.

If I am forced to leave the country or enter into a "voluntary contract" thats not really a voluntary contract is it? If I do not enter into the "voluntary contract" of a SSN, I cannot fly on planes, have a bank account, or many other services. These restrictions are put into place by force, and are an initiation of violence. If I own land, I cannot freely fish or hunt on it without entering into a "voluntary contract" with the government. If I do, I will be put in jail. These examples, and more, are all initiations of violence by other individuals. On what authority can one person force another to leave the country or sign a "voluntary contract"? Remember, the government is not a real entity, it is a collection of individuals.

Well, believe it or not, but the United States government is a real entity, no matter how much you plug your ears and say "I can't hear you" to the rest of the world. It owns all of the land that comprises the United States (eminent domain), though it does enforce a form of property rights for private ownership on the condition that these owners agree to obey their laws.

You get a say in what the laws are, via free speech and your single vote for representatives locally and nationally. If you don't want fishing licenses to exist, you're going to have to convince people that their concerns about over-fishing aren't valid. Denying that the government lacks the authority to establish a requirement for fishing licenses won't convince anyone, because it quite clearly does -- derived from their mandate from the people (in my mind), or their ownership of the territory (in yours).

As to what gives you the right to make you chose between a contract and no contract, that's kinda the whole libertarian version of freedom, isn't it? Will you compel others to offer you a different contract against their will?

It's the same as coming into a restaurant -- there's an implicit voluntary contract that if you stay you will order food, and then you will pay for it. No one forces you to stay and eat, you're free to go elsewhere. If you stay and don't order food, they'll kick you out or call the police to do it for them. You can't squat on their property.

If the United States forced you to stay, that would be different. But we don't. You can leave and renounce your citizenship at will. No one compels you to stay, but the contract is that have to pay taxes and obey laws if you do.

^The minority shouldn't have to convince the majority not to oppress and enslave them (or hire people to opress and enslave them). How can they if they are by definition the minority, and the majority makes the rules? The minority (and the majority) should be protected by laws, not majority opinion.

You think that because you call majority opinion a "law" it sanctions it. Recall that slavery was "legal" because the majority favored it. You are saying (by corollary) that african-americans should have tried to convince the majority to vote for lawmakers to change the laws. That system is nonsense. I am saying that the law should have forbid slavery because it is a violation of basic human rights.

Again, we are at the root of the issue--you either believe in the initiation of violence or you don't. I don't and you do. If 5 people corner me in a dark alley, I shouldn't have to convince them not to rob me--a sheriff should walk up and take them to jail.

^ And how did we get rid of slavery? I'm sure it was as simple as letting the minority who were sure they were right override the majority who also were sure they were right.

Couldn't have possibly dissolved into an ugly mess with a civil war.

If only we had a benevolent dictator to always tell us right from wrong like you, imstellar, I'm sure this country would be all fixed up and perfect, and no one would complain or use violence to stop you.

Seemed to work fine for Bush, though he at least pretended to participate in a democratic process. You on the other hand want to destroy the government by simply declaring it a non-entity, assuming the power of your will alone will make it vanish.

Seems perfectly moderate to me, and not at all like a slippery slope towards violent action.

Seriously, go stuff your sense of moral superiority where the sun don't shine. You don't have a greater understanding of morality than everyone else, just a different one.

^We got rid of slavery with physical violence once the majority opinion shifted. The north was more populous and had greater access to technology. They used physical violence to enforce their views, just as you wish to do today.

You advocate slavery, human sacrifice, lynching, oppression, tyranny, and physical violence. I'm advocating the fundamental human right to live in freedom. Damn right I'm claiming moral superiority. Human rights haven't changed in the last 100,000 years. Majority opinion has changed in the last decade. Your philosophy invariably ends in dictatorship. Freedom is not easy to obtain nor is it easy to hold on to.

The men who died 300 years ago in an attempt to obtain a freedom yet untasted by mankind would surely die to end the oppression you lay before America's feet today. You should be ashamed of yourself, and the views you espouse.

This post has been removed from the Fear channel by channel owner blankfist. Please review the FAQ to learn about appropriate channel assignments.