What do you guys think of this Bernie Sanders guy?

xsanguine wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:

It absolutely rejects capitalism and private property.

How do you figure? I consider myself pretty well versed in modern anarchism and this is the first I'm hearing about this.

It's fairly well established. Check your inbox.

you know, i think knowing who to disregard is as good as knowing who to listen to

the truths always right dont matter who found it or how it spelt

man is looking for one thing and that's safety. the unknown is not safe so fear creates gods for men to make them feel safe. the same goes for the state. the trick is to convince man that he is actually free. it's the hardest trick to pull off.

xsanguine wrote:man is looking for one thing and that's safety. the unknown is not safe so fear creates gods for men to make them feel safe. the same goes for the state. the trick is to convince man that he is actually free. it's the hardest trick to pull off.

I always thought scoring 3+ goals in a hockey game was the hardest trick to pulls off.

Turtleneck wrote:

xsanguine wrote:man is looking for one thing and that's safety. the unknown is not safe so fear creates gods for men to make them feel safe. the same goes for the state. the trick is to convince man that he is actually free. it's the hardest trick to pull off.

I always thought scoring 3+ goals in a hockey game was the hardest trick to pulls off.

Nah, nah... that ain't hard, thats easy.

when i use the term gods i mean both gods as in god, zeus, whatever but i also look at various ideoligies as man made gods, religion is but one type of idoeligy that answers questions for people and people take those answers and build their reason around it.

you know the spanish welcomed the french as liberators, the napoleonic movement was a movement of liberty and freedom very reasonable.

from that it's simple to reason that anyone who doesnt want the kind of freedom the ideoligy reasons to be good and sound, reasonably should be converted for there own good or killed for the greater good.

men seek safety and comfort but man i believe seeks truth.

reason lead to the fact the earth was flat an irrational thought, it was accepted. the reason it was discovered the earth is not flat is non-rational thought, someone used their imaginations someone discounted reason and moved us forward, limitless examples of this.

why does it occur?

it occurs becuase i believe we humans inately seek balance in our thoughts thus in our society.

it is that struggle for balance that leads to progress.

in my opinion it is that struggle that life occurs in, that's why we seek balance.

men will blindly accept an ideoligy but man will not, man thinks, man seeks balance becuase the struggle for it is where we find meaning, our bleifs give us confidence but our questions give us hope our imaginations free us from irrational ideoligies of reason gone wrong.

i think there for i am? pardon me but i am what? that aint even a sentence.

the only thing i know is there is thought.

there is not acceptance, there is not my way or your way there is not right or wrong. if you think a group is slowing you down cuase of there ideoligy you are thinking irrationaly becuase your reasoning in a vaccuum or more than likely you've accepted reason in a vaaculm and it's conclusion as true or right. right now very bright men are having the foreskins of there boys chopped, you know why? reason, god wants em.

you are either with us or against us.

there is thought, that's all you can know, so think. question everything for it is the questions which move human life forward. know that mans struggle for balance of mind leads to balance in society and it's the struggle for that balance that makes life worth living makes it good.

so embrace the the struggle for balance, question all your beliefs and make non rational descisions and next thing yous know it all big bucks freedom and strippers ridin your dick.

I needa get to bed or else pour nother margarita.

GR folk.. where da weed at? My card is taking too long...

xsanguine wrote:GR folk.. where da weed at? My card is taking too long...

I told you Detroit is better than Grand Rapids.

Turtleneck wrote:

xsanguine wrote:GR folk.. where da weed at? My card is taking too long...

I told you Detroit is better than Grand Rapids.

That's just asinine.

You should remember any girl who would date any of us let alone have sex with us more than once is fucken retarded. I mean shit, i\m an evil motherfucker like anyone else. i know my secrets just like you know yours. who cares if a retard aint into you no more? find another tard to fool.

alright... now this is just an exercise in masturbation. Night all...

Okay I read it.

what the fuck is this guy even talking about? Maybe I'm hanging with the wrong anarchists, guy sounds like an injun... but i also beleive it all started tohe fall apart when created all the social safety nets. before them schools were better, people knew they had to bust there ass to survive. people knew it was a must to save for a rainy day and for retirement. people knew it was all on them and acted accordingly. in the trying to save them the democratic policies ruined em.

look at most the eu. pure on socialist. no rat race, get a job for life, no one can fire you and boom you got a bunch of useless motherfuckers working, taking advatnage of the system you want and now theres 30% youth unemployement and no hope for most those countries.

  weaint sweden or norway with 4 million people. a country of 300 million. the more people you float the more shitty people you create.

I'm more of a stefan molyneux kind fo anarchist.

What you read was a pretty well cited peice that includes classical anarchist thinkers like Proudhon, Godwin, Kropotkin, and others. These are the people that helped define and shape anarchism. They should be included in any discussion of anarchism.

Molyneux rejects the state only becuase it interferes with a free market. This reflects a variant of anarchist thought, but is not anarchy as originally introduced in Europe in the 18th and 19th centuries. As introduced, anarchism rejected all forms of authority including the capitalist marketplace.

Turtleneck wrote:What you read was a pretty well cited peice that includes classical anarchist thinkers like Proudhon, Godwin, Kropotkin, and others. These are the people that helped define and shape anarchism. They should be included in any discussion of anarchism.

Molyneux rejects the state only becuase it interferes with a free market. This reflects a variant of anarchist thought, but is not anarchy as originally introduced in Europe in the 18th and 19th centuries.  As introduced, anarchism rejected all forms of authority including the capitalist marketplace.

I guess I just like the "variant" better, it's what I've always adhered to even before I knew what an "anarchist" was. It makes more sense to me. I didn't look through a list of possible views and then choose the one I liked the best... my own experiences and observations lead me to what I believe. They were shaped before I knew what the label was. And just like in this thread... every time I would have those discussions people would just say...."Oh, so you're an anarchist?". It always held a negative connotation to me because when someone says "anarchist" in mainstream I would think of 17 year olds in black masks burning down J.P. Morgan... you know, how the media presents it. Libertarianism is alright, I guess, except I just can't get past the idea of one group of people forcing others, through violence and force, to fund their ideas. Just ain't right to me, man. If I could shake it and become one of the masses and think that it's moral and cool to extort people in order to fund my ideas of utopia I would.... I don't like being looked at weird when I say, "Yeah, well... I'm kind of an anarchist, so....".... it poisons the well and the discussion usually stops there.

Like I said before, everything will continue to evolve, especially thought. I mean, look at "Republicans" and "Democrats" just within the last 100 years. The the past 200 years...

My head is bumpin

xsanguine wrote:Okay I read it.

what the fuck is this guy even talking about? Maybe I'm hanging with the wrong anarchists, guy sounds like an injun... but i also beleive it all started tohe fall apart when created all the social safety nets. before them schools were better, people knew they had to bust there ass to survive. people knew it was a must to save for a rainy day and for retirement. people knew it was all on them and acted accordingly. in the trying to save them the democratic policies ruined em.

look at most the eu. pure on socialist. no rat race, get a job for life, no one can fire you and boom you got a bunch of useless motherfuckers working, taking advatnage of the system you want and now theres 30% youth unemployement and no hope for most those countries.

  weaint sweden or norway with 4 million people. a country of 300 million. the more people you float the more shitty people you create.

Unemployment in the EU has literally nothing to do with socialism. In fact the more socialist countries are doing pretty. Denmark, Finland, Netherlands, Ireland, Norway, Sweden. They're all doing just fine.

You've clearly never lived in poverty if you think it is a desirable lifestyle. The safety net doesn't create lazy moochers, apathy and lack of hope does.

AnomanderRake wrote:

xsanguine wrote:Okay I read it.

what the fuck is this guy even talking about? Maybe I'm hanging with the wrong anarchists, guy sounds like an injun... but i also beleive it all started tohe fall apart when created all the social safety nets. before them schools were better, people knew they had to bust there ass to survive. people knew it was a must to save for a rainy day and for retirement. people knew it was all on them and acted accordingly. in the trying to save them the democratic policies ruined em.

look at most the eu. pure on socialist. no rat race, get a job for life, no one can fire you and boom you got a bunch of useless motherfuckers working, taking advatnage of the system you want and now theres 30% youth unemployement and no hope for most those countries.

  weaint sweden or norway with 4 million people. a country of 300 million. the more people you float the more shitty people you create.

Unemployment in the EU has literally nothing to do with socialism. In fact the more socialist countries are doing pretty. Denmark, Finland, Netherlands, Ireland, Norway, Sweden. They're all doing just fine.

You've clearly never lived in poverty if you think it is a desirable lifestyle. The safety net doesn't create lazy moochers, apathy and lack of hope does.

Not only have I lived but I've thrived in poverty. You seem like a good dude but you assume a lot, man.

Check my resume.

xanguine wrote: Not only have I lived but I've thrived in poverty. You seem like a good dude but you assume a lot, man.

Check my resume.

I assume a lot because you say stupid shit, like talking about the psychological impact of social welfare programs as if you're an expert on economics and psychology. You then completely missed the mark in relating structural unemployment in the EU to socialist policies. It sounds like you're just regurgitating shit you've heard, which makes me think you don't have any clue what you're talking about.

Also I don't believe for a second that you ever "thrived in poverty", unless we have very different definitions of thrive.

AnomanderRake wrote:

I assume a lot because you say stupid shit, like talking about the psychological impact of social welfare programs as if you're an expert on economics and psychology. You then completely missed the mark in relating structural unemployment in the EU to socialist policies. It sounds like you're just regurgitating shit you've heard, which makes me think you don't have any clue what you're talking about.

We're two guys talking on the internet about how we see the world. If your requirement is that we both must have PhD's (i.e., experts) in whatever field we're going to discuss then we're not going to have a lot to talk about. Maybe you do... I guess you haven't revealed how many PhD's you have... and I'm not going to assume; that's your schtick. I don't have a PhD in psychology... I merely studied it in undergrad as my major for a couple of years before I switched majors (which happened after the incident I discuss below). I'm sorry that I can't match your dual majors in psychology and economics. You must be extremely proud of those accomplishments and since I don't have your qualifications I guess I can't discuss this topic more because you require expertise on whatever it is that's going to be discussed.

AnomanderRake wrote:
Also I don't believe for a second that you ever "thrived in poverty", unless we have very different definitions of thrive.

After a couple of years at school I dropped out to be in a touring rock band... living on Ramen noodles and Kraft Mac & Cheese (queso blanco is the only thing worth eating), sleeping on people's couches, relying on friend's parents to let me crash in their basement when I wasn't on the road and living in a 1996 Dodge Ram with 4 other smelly, sleep deprived dudes (no homo, nttawwt)... I'd say that qualifies as poverty. And it was fucking awesome. I also went back to school once the several years of touring was over, finished and now am not in poverty. I'm recently no longer doing music and moved to a quaint little town called Grand Rapids on the conservative, west side of Michigan where I live on a lake next door to a bunch of hoytey toytey neighbors and I get to fish whenever the fuck I want. I'm not a millionaire, but I like where I'm at currently. So yes... depending on how you define "thrive"... just as you require an "expert" to discuss things on an off topic forum within a sports-based message board with you... I guess you'll call it however you want.

What the fuck, man... get back on topic. You're getting me all off point, too...

I don't like people forcing (let's not forget by the threat of violence) other people to fund their ideas. That's my main point. I don't give a shit how pretty you think socialism is. It's violent and it's wrong.

Why do you feel you have a right to the financial resources of others against their will?

Defend violently forcing other people to hand over their money so that you can spend it as you wish? Defend punishing people by kidnapping them and enslaving them in a cage if they refuse to give you their belongings.

Stop evading the point.

You don't have to be an expert but if you're going to bash socialism at least know what the fuck it is and how it works. You said things were better before the social safety nets existed, except you never lived in that world unless you're actually over 60 years old.

Regarding taxes and our legal obligation as citizens to pay them or be locked up...It would be nice if we lived in a fantasy world where people were inherently good to each other and all of the world's problems fixed themselves. Unfortunately we do not.

Governments and ultimately taxes are a result of our human nature to establish and maintain communities, which evolved into the large societies we have today. A necessary component of these societies is that there are a lot of common things we all use or need, such as schools, police & fire departments, roads, bridges, water and the resources associated with maintaining them are expensive. (Out of curiosity if you're against taxes and government in principle, what mechanism would you suggest for maintaining our society and maintaining order?)

Taxes pay for all of this, and they pay for the war machine, the social security fund, health care, food stamps, etc. No I am not happy with how all of our dollars are spent but that doesn't mean you turn the faucet off, eliminate the government and turn our country into a Mad Max sequel.

We as citizens have to decide when enough is enough, yes our government is broken but only because we allowed it to get to this point, the average citizen is very uninformed when it comes to political matters. However, I don't think the answer is no government, rather we need better government, more accountable government without the rampant corruption, a government not bought out by billionaires and corporations.

As the wealth gap between the rich and poor continues to increase, we get closer to our inevitable downfall and eventual resurrection under new leadership. If history has taught us anything it is that great nations like ours destroy themselves from within, it's only a matter of time. The poor and middle class don't have all of the money, but we possess a power in numbers that can never be bought, we just don't realize it yet.

Since someone locked the "Feel the Bern" thread.

LEAKED EMAIL PROVES DNC RIGGED PRIMARY DEBATES

The revised memo, which was also sent to Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook and longtime Clinton advisor Ronald Klain, details the objectives of the Clinton campaign regarding debates. It discusses how they had worked with the DNC to get what they wanted and box out Clinton’s primary opponents.

Through internal discussions, we concluded that it was in our interest to: 1) limit the number of debates (and the number in each state); 2) start the debates as late as possible; 3) keep debates out of the busy window between February 1 and February 27, 2016 (Iowa to South Carolina); 4) create a schedule that would allow the later debates to be cancelled if the race is for practical purposes over; 5) encourage an emphasis on local issues and local media participants in the debate formats; and 6) ensure a format that provides equal time for all candidates and does not give the moderator any discretion to focus on one candidate.

Baker says these objectives, to limit the debates and keep them out of the public eye as much as possible, have been part of discussion with the DNC. Baker also notes that the DNC was on board and working with the Clinton campaign to jam her opponents’ attempts to get both more and more visible debates.

That’s right, coordination right down to a Clinton campaign pre-approved press release. The game was over before it began.

It should be recognized that most observers understood the DNC was not playing fair. Senator Bernie Sanders and many of his supporters explicitly accused the DNC of rigging the debates on behalf of Hillary Clinton. As we now know, that accusation was right on the money.

And that's why I'm writing in Bernie or Gary. Fuck you all.

Roc and trav gonna bury their head in the sand and vote for Clinton. Fuck that noise.

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:Roc and trav gonna bury their head in the sand and vote for Clinton. Fuck that noise.

Says the guy whose primary concern in this election is "which candidate will let me get high the most?"

Turtleneck wrote:

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:Roc and trav gonna bury their head in the sand and vote for Clinton. Fuck that noise.

Says the guy whose primary concern in this election is "which candidate will let me get high the most?"

I get high as much as I want right now Tn.

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:

Says the guy whose primary concern in this election is "which candidate will let me get high the most?"

I get high as much as I want right now Tn.

I am just saying you are a selfish asshole.

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:

Says the guy whose primary concern in this election is "which candidate will let me get high the most?"

I get high as much as I want right now Tn.

And what's wrong with getting high you stiff necked SOB?

xsanguine wrote:GR folk.. where da weed at? My card is taking too long...

Get a card first, follow the laws and find a caregiver :) It's harder to find law-abiding patients than it is caregivers

SomeFanName wrote:

xsanguine wrote:GR folk.. where da weed at? My card is taking too long...

Get a card first, follow the laws and find a caregiver :) It's harder to find law-abiding patients than it is caregivers

I found a card in the mail a little over a year ago. Must have been a gift from god because it also had my name on it! But yeah, the law was just a way for people to smoke weed. Which I'm okay with. Just legalize it, for god's sake. I smoked a lot more before I got the card for some reason.

I came in here to say I wish Bernie was still a viable candidate. I may have mentioned it at the time but didn't have the foresight to fear a Trump vs. Clinton election.

Also, everything AnomanderRake said at the time is bullshit.

xsanguine wrote:I came in here to say I wish Bernie was still a viable candidate. I may have mentioned it at the time but didn't have the foresight to fear a Trump vs. Clinton election.

We would all be jamming to Phish, eating raw milk cheddar, and guzzling maple syrup. That does not sound too bad.

Edit: the syrup part sounds gross. You can take my syrup.

Double edit: wait, if Bernie was president would the cheddar and syrup lines - you listen to Phish while waiting in line - be like the American version of Soviet bread lines?

Gosh Bernie would win this fucking thing!!!

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:Gosh Bernie would win this fucking thing!!!

Trump

/thread

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:Gosh Bernie would win this fucking thing!!!

He still could.

Turtleneck wrote:

xsanguine wrote:I came in here to say I wish Bernie was still a viable candidate. I may have mentioned it at the time but didn't have the foresight to fear a Trump vs. Clinton election.

We would all be jamming to Phish, eating raw milk cheddar, and guzzling maple syrup. That does not sound too bad.

Edit: the syrup part sounds gross. You can take my syrup.

Double edit: wait, if Bernie was president would the cheddar and syrup lines - you listen to Phish while waiting in line - be like the American version of Soviet bread lines?

I need something a little more catchy that Phish, but in Bernie's America the only bands would be government approved bands... so if it's that vs. Bryan Adams I guess I can deal with it.