Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
poda_t wrote: Not liberalism. Liberalism is a crappy crapsack of crap filled with crap, that has more interest in creating BS policies of creating artificial equalities to the point where it inevitably becomes criminal to be white, but, I digress...
Wut? The liberal notion of equality is minimal, it does not prescribe any action to the government. Liberalism is about the State's neutrality, the citizen's freedom, and equality in regard to the law, all in respect with the moral pluralism that caracterise our modern societies.
Do not mistake liberalism with what people that get called liberals do, it's not the same thing.
classically, maybe. Classically, democracy was not principled on an electoral system, and anyone that was a standing citizen could attend and vote on decisions. I can't walk into parliament to cast my votes... in fact i only vote once every 4 years on exactly what kind of criminal i want running my country, but that's another discussion.... yet we all understand that we are living in a democratic state.....
15 successful trades as a buyer;
16 successful trades as a seller;
To glimpse the future, you must look to the past and understand it. Names may change, but human behavior repeats itself. Prophetic insight is nothing more than profound hindsight.
It doesn't matter how bloody far the apple falls from the tree. If the apple fell off of a Granny Smith, that apple is going to grow into a Granny bloody Smith. The only difference is whether that apple grows in the shade of the tree it fell from.
poda_t wrote: classically, maybe. Classically, democracy was not principled on an electoral system, and anyone that was a standing citizen could attend and vote on decisions. I can't walk into parliament to cast my votes... in fact i only vote once every 4 years on exactly what kind of criminal i want running my country, but that's another discussion.... yet we all understand that we are living in a democratic state.....
Classical liberalism is more specific (while at the same time being a term with multiple accepted uses) than what I refered to. Speaking of liberalism is often tricky because it's associated with a very large variety of different conceptions, but it does not refer to 'creating artificial equality to the point that being white is almost illegal' in any way.
Anyway, if your criticism boils down to 'well, that might have been the classical theory, but look at what it's at nowadays', then you've more than invalidated your own, ''pro-commie'' stance.
And wtf dude, you are canadian. I could have accepted this from an american, but not a fellow northerner.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/03/29 06:20:10
[...] for conflict is the great teacher, and pain, the perfect educator.
poda_t wrote: Classically, democracy was not principled on an electoral system, and anyone that was a standing citizen could attend and vote on decisions.
True, but what constituted a citizen has varied over time.
poda_t wrote: classically, maybe. Classically, democracy was not principled on an electoral system, and anyone that was a standing citizen could attend and vote on decisions. I can't walk into parliament to cast my votes... in fact i only vote once every 4 years on exactly what kind of criminal i want running my country, but that's another discussion.... yet we all understand that we are living in a democratic state.....
Classical liberalism is more specific (while at the same time being a term with multiple accepted uses) than what I refered to. Speaking of liberalism is often tricky because it's associated with a very large variety of different conceptions, but it does not refer to 'creating artificial equality to the point that being white is almost illegal' in any way.
Anyway, if your criticism boils down to 'well, that might have been the classical theory, but look at what it's at nowadays', then you've more than invalidated your own, ''pro-commie'' stance.
And wtf dude, you are canadian. I could have accepted this from an american, but not a fellow northerner.
For the record. Liberals and Conservatives are both gakkers. for their entire existance they have been "me too me too", and only differed on whether to buy new guns from americans, or used guns from the british, and whether to cut overhead for healthcare, or add more overhead to healthcare..... the liberals are also the ones we can thank for the current disaster with quebec. Quebec wants out? Fine. Enjoy your short stint of nationalism, which is well on its way to being dead if the EU is anything to go by.
and no. My stance for communism is not invalid because i think the Liberal party is full of quacks.
15 successful trades as a buyer;
16 successful trades as a seller;
To glimpse the future, you must look to the past and understand it. Names may change, but human behavior repeats itself. Prophetic insight is nothing more than profound hindsight.
It doesn't matter how bloody far the apple falls from the tree. If the apple fell off of a Granny Smith, that apple is going to grow into a Granny bloody Smith. The only difference is whether that apple grows in the shade of the tree it fell from.
I have to admit, poda, you might be mistaking the fundamental movement behind liberals. The clue's in the name; a liberal wants freedom, i.e. liberty in life and politics.
Although many are so overly involved in neutering opinions that might annoy somebody else, I admit, they aren't actually all about equality.
BlapBlapBlap: bringing idiocy and mischief where it should never set foot since 2011.
BlapBlapBlap wrote:What sort of idiot quotes themselves in their sigs? Who could possibly be that arrogant?
poda_t wrote: For the record. Liberals and Conservatives are both gakkers. for their entire existance they have been "me too me too", and only differed on whether to buy new guns from americans, or used guns from the british, and whether to cut overhead for healthcare, or add more overhead to healthcare..... the liberals are also the ones we can thank for the current disaster with quebec. Quebec wants out? Fine. Enjoy your short stint of nationalism, which is well on its way to being dead if the EU is anything to go by.
and no. My stance for communism is not invalid because i think the Liberal party is full of quacks.
Liberalism =/= the Liberal Party, just like Conservatism =/= the Conservative Party. Hell the Conservative Party is closer to Neoliberalism than anything else. Liberalism is a specific body of political doctrines. Because of the inherent pragmatical needs of political parties to respond to current events, they dont always (in fact they never do) abide entirely or even mostly to their own philosophical foundation.
I'm not sure what to do about that whole Québec bashing rant, honestly. I'm not sure what disaster you are refering to. Our provincial Liberal Party is neoliberal, much like the Conservative Party at the federal level. Or do you mean Trudeau's Liberals being at fault?
Can't say I follow you, honestly.
[...] for conflict is the great teacher, and pain, the perfect educator.
poda_t wrote: For the record. Liberals and Conservatives are both gakkers. for their entire existance they have been "me too me too", and only differed on whether to buy new guns from americans, or used guns from the british, and whether to cut overhead for healthcare, or add more overhead to healthcare..... the liberals are also the ones we can thank for the current disaster with quebec. Quebec wants out? Fine. Enjoy your short stint of nationalism, which is well on its way to being dead if the EU is anything to go by.
and no. My stance for communism is not invalid because i think the Liberal party is full of quacks.
Liberalism =/= the Liberal Party, just like Conservatism =/= the Conservative Party. Hell the Conservative Party is closer to Neoliberalism than anything else. Liberalism is a specific body of political doctrines. Because of the inherent pragmatical needs of political parties to respond to current events, they dont always (in fact they never do) abide entirely or even mostly to their own philosophical foundation.
I'm not sure what to do about that whole Québec bashing rant, honestly. I'm not sure what disaster you are refering to. Our provincial Liberal Party is neoliberal, much like the Conservative Party at the federal level. Or do you mean Trudeau's Liberals being at fault?
Can't say I follow you, honestly.
we can start with the , oh, at least $50 billion that Quebec received over the past 20 years that really should have gone to the maritime provinces or northern territories instead, or the snide arrogant attitude that Quebec has pertaining to the "lack" of culture in the west..... let's not even touch on the retrogressive isolationist politics that the province seems instant to follow, or the need to strangle to death what culture they have than let it grow and flourish. Then there's the racists and xenophobes the province is breeding... I can go all across Europe and speak English, and people are willing to help me, i can even go to eastern Europe, start speaking Russian, people won't bat an eye. But I go to Quebec, and I have more people gaking down my throat than English words I spoke, and words I only said to the people I was there with. Can't even talk to them in Hungarian either. Yeah. come to think of it, I really can't see the problem either.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/03/29 07:47:54
15 successful trades as a buyer;
16 successful trades as a seller;
To glimpse the future, you must look to the past and understand it. Names may change, but human behavior repeats itself. Prophetic insight is nothing more than profound hindsight.
It doesn't matter how bloody far the apple falls from the tree. If the apple fell off of a Granny Smith, that apple is going to grow into a Granny bloody Smith. The only difference is whether that apple grows in the shade of the tree it fell from.
poda_t wrote: we can start with the , oh, at least $50 billion that Quebec received over the past 20 years that really should have gone to the maritime provinces or northern territories instead, or the snide arrogant attitude that Quebec has pertaining to the "lack" of culture in the west..... let's not even touch on the retrogressive isolationist politics that the province seems instant to follow, or the need to strangle to death what culture they have than let it grow and flourish. Then there's the racists and xenophobes the province is breeding... I can go all across Europe and speak English, and people are willing to help me, i can even go to eastern Europe, start speaking Russian, people won't bat an eye. But I go to Quebec, and I have more people gaking down my throat than English words I spoke, and words I only said to the people I was there with. Can't even talk to them in Hungarian either. Yeah. come to think of it, I really can't see the problem either.
ಠ_ಠ
So, hum, what does any of this has to do with liberalism? Or are you just going out of your way to insult me?
[...] for conflict is the great teacher, and pain, the perfect educator.
poda_t wrote: we can start with the , oh, at least $50 billion that Quebec received over the past 20 years that really should have gone to the maritime provinces or northern territories instead, or the snide arrogant attitude that Quebec has pertaining to the "lack" of culture in the west..... let's not even touch on the retrogressive isolationist politics that the province seems instant to follow, or the need to strangle to death what culture they have than let it grow and flourish. Then there's the racists and xenophobes the province is breeding... I can go all across Europe and speak English, and people are willing to help me, i can even go to eastern Europe, start speaking Russian, people won't bat an eye. But I go to Quebec, and I have more people gaking down my throat than English words I spoke, and words I only said to the people I was there with. Can't even talk to them in Hungarian either. Yeah. come to think of it, I really can't see the problem either.
ಠ_ಠ
So, hum, what does any of this has to do with liberalism? Or are you just going out of your way to insult me?
that particular rant had nothing to do with liberalism, just a special place under my heel that I reserve for quebec and the antics that the politicians insist on going through, despite plenty of applicable examples across Europe and asia that following these kinds of policies is an incredibly unhealthy and retrogressive. Most of the world is embracing global integration, but quebec insists on "manifesting its own destiny" and achieving nationhood.... for what? Europe is a great example of everything that went wrong with the last batch of nationalism to sweep it by storm, and most of eaastern europe is still cleaning up from the ramifications of that bout of nationalism.
15 successful trades as a buyer;
16 successful trades as a seller;
To glimpse the future, you must look to the past and understand it. Names may change, but human behavior repeats itself. Prophetic insight is nothing more than profound hindsight.
It doesn't matter how bloody far the apple falls from the tree. If the apple fell off of a Granny Smith, that apple is going to grow into a Granny bloody Smith. The only difference is whether that apple grows in the shade of the tree it fell from.
poda_t wrote: that particular rant had nothing to do with liberalism, just a special place under my heel that I reserve for quebec and the antics that the politicians insist on going through, despite plenty of applicable examples across Europe and asia that following these kinds of policies is an incredibly unhealthy and retrogressive. Most of the world is embracing global integration, but quebec insists on "manifesting its own destiny" and achieving nationhood.... for what? Europe is a great example of everything that went wrong with the last batch of nationalism to sweep it by storm, and most of eaastern europe is still cleaning up from the ramifications of that bout of nationalism.
You seem to love to throw 'nationalism' around. Ever tried communautarism? Interculturalism?
For someone who bitches so harshly about liberalism, you sure are playing their game.
[...] for conflict is the great teacher, and pain, the perfect educator.
You have a distinctly correct point. Life would be awesome if it weren't for all the people.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
I'll ask again. How would a communist state, by necessity a dictatorship, ever move beyond the dictatorship.
AKA whats going to make it do that? Whats going to make the party apparatchuks and the army give up power?
A communist dictatorship is a controdiction, it is impossible to have a communist dictatorship, how can an ideaology were everyone is equal have a dictator?
Communism is technicly Utopia.
OK we'll keep asking the question until someone answers it or admits it can't be done.
The People's Republic of Assholistan is formed after the 14th revolution. Folowing Marx it installs a centralized government to reorganize society, and manage the means of production.
How does The People's Republic of Assholistan realistically move from banana republic to worker's paradise taking into account human nature.
I should be clear (if not before) that, although I am laughing at the concept of communism on earth, itsw utopianism is something that would be heavenly (and reserved for such a place).
So, in other words, it won't work here because people suck. In "another place" it might be just fine...
(this was also a GC favorite when she was about five. Mine too! ).
It could only be done if all people were willing for it to be done, if even one person didn't want to then the farthest anyone would get would be socialism, and i can't say what i'd do because i am not smart enough to run a country, very few people are.
"They can't say no when they are stunned "- Taric
SINCE I STARTED KEEPING TRACK
5000(7 drop-pods)pts (15/10/4)
200pts(lol)
1500pts (10/0/0)
Other:(7/0/0)
I'll ask again. How would a communist state, by necessity a dictatorship, ever move beyond the dictatorship.
AKA whats going to make it do that? Whats going to make the party apparatchuks and the army give up power?
And I'll answer it, for the third time in this thread, because apparently I love to inflict suffering on my self. And afterwards I'll pretend to look shocked when you ignore and post the same nonsense all over again.
Your first mistaken assumption is that communism requires an initial dictatorship. If a party runs for government in an open election with the platform 'we'll nationalise the means of production' and wins, and then goes about nationalising the means of production... that's now a communist country, and one that's been democratically elected. There would be nothing stopping them from continuing to have elections and winning government.
Your second mistaken assumption is that governments never surrender power. I already pointed out the USSR, who became democratic not through a people's revolution or through the invasion of some other country, but by recognising that their communist system had simply failed to deliver.
And now I look forward to asking those same fething questions again, as if they'd never been answered.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Why Do The Young Vote For Dependency(Socialism/Communism)?
BECAUSE IT’S ALL THEY’VE EVER KNOWN!
Generally speaking the family is communist — from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs — and it takes a while to realize that the rest of the world doesn’t work that way, because only parents are willing to make that sort of sacrifice, and then only for their own kids.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/04/02 03:07:17
TermiesInARaider wrote: Communism; wonderful idea on paper, never really works in reality. It sort of requires massive amounts of dedication from everyone involved. The moment you have one person who's not working his all for the community and trying to coast by, the model breaks.
Nope, not a thing. I've explained it about 15 fething times in this fething thread, only to have people just jump in 'why the feth should I read what anyone else has to say, they're just a bunch of donkey-caves... here's my opinion that I'm going to tell all of them'
I mean, for feth's sakes, this thread is getting beyond a joke. I don't mean to dump just on you TermiesInaRaider because you're not the only one, in fact it seems like every other post is someone coming in to say 'oh it's a utopia but human nature blah fething blah blah'... it's just bs.
Read. You don't even have to read a book. Just read this thread. Communism in writing might sound like an impossible utopian dream, but then so does capitalism in writing. Actual, real world communism has a very keen sense of human nature. In fact, their mistrust of human nature if anything is typically way overstated - look up the number of secret police employed to root out class traitors and any notion of communism as idealising humans should disappear quite quickly.
Instead, communism in practice has understood that people are self-interested and work more for their own good than for the overall benefit of society. Just like capitalism accepts that. The real, and definitive difference is that in capitalism the means of production are owned by private individuals chasing profit, while in communism the means of production are owned by the state.
And the final, absolute reason that capitalism has flourished while communism failed is because expecting a massive bureaucratic state to develop new products and innovative new solutions is a terrible idea.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
And the final, absolute reason that capitalism has flourished while communism failed is because expecting a massive bureaucratic state to develop new products and innovative new solutions is a terrible idea.
problem: Development of the space frontier. I'm going to pull a Neil deGrasse Tyson on you and say: show me where in history it was that the markets lead the way into research and development or exploration or advances, where the state did not step in first and lay the ground work from which the markets could spring off of? You need a lot of loss and a lot of disinterested effort in an area before anyone else can come in, see whats there and run with it in a fashion that is profitable. This is where the state absolutely needs to come in, and I point at the US for its own decline, because the killing of their own federally funded research is what killed innovation, as well as assured American dominance in the international market.
15 successful trades as a buyer;
16 successful trades as a seller;
To glimpse the future, you must look to the past and understand it. Names may change, but human behavior repeats itself. Prophetic insight is nothing more than profound hindsight.
It doesn't matter how bloody far the apple falls from the tree. If the apple fell off of a Granny Smith, that apple is going to grow into a Granny bloody Smith. The only difference is whether that apple grows in the shade of the tree it fell from.
whembly wrote: Here's a different slant on this question Seb...
Why Do The Young Vote For Dependency(Socialism/Communism)?
BECAUSE IT’S ALL THEY’VE EVER KNOWN!
Generally speaking the family is communist — from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs — and it takes a while to realize that the rest of the world doesn’t work that way, because only parents are willing to make that sort of sacrifice, and then only for their own kids.
Nah, there's plenty of young 'uns who take up the opposite bent - absolute unfettered faith in the free market. I think the real issue is that kids are likely to grab on to a simple model that makes sense of it all by blaming everything on some authority figure. Whether that authority figure is rich elite businessmen or stupid dodderheaded government bureaucracies doesn't really matter, the point is to feel like you're on a crusade (I might have one such person at one stage ).
Then you leave highschool and get a job, maybe to pay for college, maybe not. Then you get the next stage of politics - the first pay cheque libertarians (wait the government takes 20% of what I earn?!) and first pay cheque socialists (wait all I can afford on my retail job salary is a single room apartment in a gak neighbourhood?!)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
poda_t wrote: problem: Development of the space frontier. I'm going to pull a Neil deGrasse Tyson on you and say: show me where in history it was that the markets lead the way into research and development or exploration or advances, where the state did not step in first and lay the ground work from which the markets could spring off of? You need a lot of loss and a lot of disinterested effort in an area before anyone else can come in, see whats there and run with it in a fashion that is profitable. This is where the state absolutely needs to come in, and I point at the US for its own decline, because the killing of their own federally funded research is what killed innovation, as well as assured American dominance in the international market.
Sure thing. Bare in mind I've simplifying a hell of a lot in this thread. There are plenty of places for direct government nation building - I'd already mentioned the space program as something the Soviets did quite well, but also major nation building projects like hydro-electric dams, irrigation, all that kind of stuff is definitely a place for government.
And there's also the inter-connectedness of government projects and private investment. All kinds of engineering and medical technologies are originally developed through government research undertaken in universities, before being taken to the private sector before in order to roll out a final, useable product to the market.
It's just that such projects can't ever be the sole driver of growth. Otherwise you see exactly what we saw in the USSR - excellence in specific government pet projects (space program and some medical fields) and but nothing else besides.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/04/02 07:49:12
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
This isn't particularly aimed at anyone or any comments that have yet happened on the thread, just my ideas about what would be the best situation possible.
I think the main problem with communism isn't how it would be run, but rather how to get it running. It is (in theory) possible to create communism (or very close to it) where everything runs well, however it would require people having the right mindset e.g. wanting to work or create new technologies, and also a working political system which will always be difficult to set up.
I'm sceptical of the idea that we will always need further development, which communism will always have difficulties providing. Sure, better healthcare, better gadgets, better fuels and so on, but once (and if) we get to a point where the entire system is stable, what would be stopping something close to communism? Of course, motivation towards work is always useful, but other than that why should anyone get more than anyone else?
As for governance, once a stable system was in place surely very little law-creating would be needed? Of course, should a crisis happen you would always need someone there to be ready for it, but it would largely be unnecessary, as far as I can see.
"It would require people having the right mindset."
And the Gulag is born.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Ok, I admit it's the kind of thing that Stalin would say. But (and I completely understand if you think I'm a psychopath after this), surely it would be better to change peoples' minds for them if it resulted in them being better off? I'm not suggesting we do this, because it would require someone to oversee it... but in theory, would it not be for the best?
I think the real issue is that kids are likely to grab on to a simple model that makes sense of it all by blaming everything on some authority figure. Whether that authority figure is rich elite businessmen or stupid dodderheaded government bureaucracies doesn't really matter, the point is to feel like you're on a crusade (I might have one such person at one stage ).
Then you leave highschool and get a job, maybe to pay for college, maybe not. Then you get the next stage of politics - the first pay cheque libertarians (wait the government takes 20% of what I earn?!) and first pay cheque socialists (wait all I can afford on my retail job salary is a single room apartment in a gak neighbourhood?!)
When does frazzled leave highschool? WHEN?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/04/03 02:25:47
Manchu - "But so what? The Bible also says the flood destroyed the world. You only need an allegorical boat to tackle an allegorical flood."
Shespits "Anything i see with YOLO has half naked eleventeen year olds Girls. And of course booze and drugs and more half naked elventeen yearolds Girls. O how i wish to YOLO again!"
Rubiksnoob "Next you'll say driving a stick with a Scandinavian supermodel on your lap while ripping a bong impairs your driving. And you know what, I'M NOT GOING TO STOP, YOU FILTHY COMMUNIST"
p_gray99 wrote: This isn't particularly aimed at anyone or any comments that have yet happened on the thread, just my ideas about what would be the best situation possible.
I think the main problem with communism isn't how it would be run, but rather how to get it running. It is (in theory) possible to create communism (or very close to it) where everything runs well, however it would require people having the right mindset e.g. wanting to work or create new technologies, and also a working political system which will always be difficult to set up.
I don't think it's very wise to set up a political system and then try to get people to act in a way that'll make your political system work. I think the only practical political systems start with the reality of how people think and behave, and work with that.
As a simple example, it'd make no sense and be a total fething disaster to just drop into Medieval Europe and tell everyone women are equal and have all the same rights as men. We take that as a basic political truth now, but it took centuries of steady changes to our economic and social systems to reach a point where women could be seen as equal to men.
I'm sceptical of the idea that we will always need further development, which communism will always have difficulties providing.
Absolutely agree. But while such a point might be possible down the line, we certainly aren't there now.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/04/03 03:26:04
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
p_gray99 wrote: Ok, I admit it's the kind of thing that Stalin would say. But (and I completely understand if you think I'm a psychopath after this), surely it would be better to change peoples' minds for them if it resulted in them being better off? I'm not suggesting we do this, because it would require someone to oversee it... but in theory, would it not be for the best?
They won't be better off if they are dead, unless you believe in that Heaven thing.
I think the real issue is that kids are likely to grab on to a simple model that makes sense of it all by blaming everything on some authority figure. Whether that authority figure is rich elite businessmen or stupid dodderheaded government bureaucracies doesn't really matter, the point is to feel like you're on a crusade (I might have one such person at one stage ).
Then you leave highschool and get a job, maybe to pay for college, maybe not. Then you get the next stage of politics - the first pay cheque libertarians (wait the government takes 20% of what I earn?!) and first pay cheque socialists (wait all I can afford on my retail job salary is a single room apartment in a gak neighbourhood?!)
When does frazzled leave highschool? WHEN?
High school. I remember it fondly. My first day of class: Advanced Pointy Sticks, More Pointy Sticks, Modern Philosophy-Fire Do We Need It?, and who can forget-Homo Sapiens-a A Passing Fad?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/04/03 10:53:58
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
d-usa wrote: Wasn't that back when Wiender Dogs were first domesticated?
Yes, They were many animal lodges when I was young. However the Great Wienie did not fully reveal Its Wisdom until later.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
The centre of a massive brood chamber, heaving and pulsating.
I suggest we resurrect Billy Mays and make him supreme ruler of Earth.
Squigsquasher, resident ban magnet, White Knight, and general fethwit.
buddha wrote: I've decided that these GW is dead/dying threads that pop up every-week must be followers and cultists of nurgle perpetuating the need for decay. I therefore declare that that such threads are heresy and subject to exterminatus. So says the Inquisition!
Frazzled wrote: "It would require people having the right mindset."
And the Gulag is born.
Heck, we've convicnced over half the country that 'reality' TV is worth watching; next to that convincing people to give communism a chance is child's play.
Assuming we could get the capitolist entities in charge of mass media to go along...
Frazzled wrote: "It would require people having the right mindset."
And the Gulag is born.
But everything does rely on people having the right mindset, especially a social change as dramatic as communism, and not everybody has to go in a Gulag if they disagree, people can agree to disagree, most people do, all that it does is stop the change, and that might even be a good thing to a certain extent, longer to figure things out.
"They can't say no when they are stunned "- Taric
SINCE I STARTED KEEPING TRACK
5000(7 drop-pods)pts (15/10/4)
200pts(lol)
1500pts (10/0/0)
Other:(7/0/0)
). 
5000(7 drop-pods)pts (15/10/4)
).
