NationStates Jolt Archive

Good morning, Vietnam. I am going to attempt to try to attempt to try to lay down the basic outlining of a debate here in the good ole General forum.
Let's say the debate is about gay marriage just fir shits and giggles.

Liberal Commie:
I don't see why gays shouldn't have the right to get married.

Forum Elder:
Like we haven't seen this one a million-fucking times.

LC:
Thanks for contributing. :rolleyes:

FE:
Thanks for contributing. :rolleyes:
You're welcome. :D

European Existentialist:
In my country gay marriage, I don't see why you guys don't have it.

Anarchist:
If there wasn't a state then this wouldn't happen. The state has no right to intervene in the affairs of others.

Republican Nazi:
Well the majority voted against gay marriage.

LC:
That doesn't matter, freedom should be allowed in all forms (except economic and in which case you will be taxed to death and highly regulated.)!

RN:
It's a matter of states's rights, rabble rabble.

LC:
But we're all one country.

EE:
One of us, one us gooble gobble, gooble gobble.

Ffc2:
It's says it's immoral somewhere in the scripture:

Saipea:
There is no god, you're so wrong:

Ffc2:
Everything needs a creator, except god.

Saipea:
Science, bitch.

Frisbeetaria:
Official warning.

-----Three months and another Harry Potter book later-----
New Poster:
Those damn Republican Nazi, neocon, fascists!

Eutrusca:
What wonderful generalizations. :rolleyes:

EE:
You have to define your terms, they're different here in the land of milk and honey that we call Europe.

The NAS:
Pansies.

EE:
Bushite!

Spammer:
:fluffle: :fluffle:

New Poster:
Bush!? :mp5: :sniper: :mp5:

Frisbeetaria:
Thread locked and official warnings.

Something like that, yeah...

pretty much.

Something like that, yeah...
I feel like I left someone out.

You got the whole thing pretty much right.

What the heck was this all about?

Funny but true, lol.

That was pretty good. Though, you left out the smart mouth who points out bad wording and pretends to act like that’s how you meant it.

That was pretty good. Though, you left out the smart mouth who points out bad wording and pretends to act like that’s how you meant it.

This can be shortened to the Grammar Nazi :rolleyes:

I feel like I left someone out.

Moi?

Good morning, Vietnam. I am going to attempt to try to attempt to try to lay down the basic outlining of a debate here in the good ole General forum.
Let's say the debate is about gay marriage just fir shits and giggles.

Liberal Commie:
I don't see why gays shouldn't have the right to get married.

Forum Elder:
Like we haven't seen this one a million-fucking times.

LC:
Thanks for contributing. :rolleyes:

FE:

You're welcome. :D

European Existentialist:
In my country gay marriage, I don't see why you guys don't have it.

Anarchist:
If there wasn't a state then this wouldn't happen. The state has no right to intervene in the affairs of others.

Republican Nazi:
Well the majority voted against gay marriage.

LC:
That doesn't matter, freedom should be allowed in all forms (except economic and in which case you will be taxed to death and highly regulated.)!

RN:
It's a matter of states's rights, rabble rabble.

LC:
But we're all one country.

EE:
One of us, one us gooble gobble, gooble gobble.

Ffc2:
It's says it's immoral somewhere in the scripture:

Saipea:
There is no god, you're so wrong:

Ffc2:
Everything needs a creator, except god.

Saipea:
Science, bitch.

Frisbeetaria:
Official warning.

-----Three months and another Harry Potter book later-----
New Poster:
Those damn Republican Nazi, neocon, fascists!

Eutrusca:
What wonderful generalizations. :rolleyes:

EE:
You have to define your terms, they're different here in the land of milk and honey that we call Europe.

The NAS:
Pansies.

EE:
Bushite!

Spammer:
:fluffle: :fluffle:

New Poster:
Bush!? :mp5: :sniper: :mp5:

Frisbeetaria:
Thread locked and official warnings.
NS General: The Movie

This can be shortened to the Grammar Nazi :rolleyes:
I knew there was a word for it!

NS General: The Movie

I propose Sean Connery as Eustrusca.

Heh heh. Nice. That does seem to be the pattern.

I feel like I just read the entire General forum at once.

Nice work leaving out the libertarian hypocrite

It's beautiful. I feel like I just had the entire NS General experience condensed into pill form and I swallowed it, whereupon it re-expanded and I got the full rush of mindless pointless repeating debate that can only be summed up by a series of these > :headbang: smilies. Thank you.

Good morning, Vietnam. I am going to attempt to try to attempt to try to lay down the basic outlining of a debate here in the good ole General forum.
Let's say the debate is about gay marriage just fir shits and giggles.

Liberal Commie:
I don't see why gays shouldn't have the right to get married.

Forum Elder:
Like we haven't seen this one a million-fucking times.

LC:
Thanks for contributing. :rolleyes:

FE:

You're welcome. :D

European Existentialist:
In my country gay marriage, I don't see why you guys don't have it.

Anarchist:
If there wasn't a state then this wouldn't happen. The state has no right to intervene in the affairs of others.

Republican Nazi:
Well the majority voted against gay marriage.

LC:
That doesn't matter, freedom should be allowed in all forms (except economic and in which case you will be taxed to death and highly regulated.)!

RN:
It's a matter of states's rights, rabble rabble.

LC:
But we're all one country.

EE:
One of us, one us gooble gobble, gooble gobble.

Ffc2:
It's says it's immoral somewhere in the scripture:

Saipea:
There is no god, you're so wrong:

Ffc2:
Everything needs a creator, except god.

Saipea:
Science, bitch.

Frisbeetaria:
Official warning.

-----Three months and another Harry Potter book later-----
New Poster:
Those damn Republican Nazi, neocon, fascists!

Eutrusca:
What wonderful generalizations. :rolleyes:

EE:
You have to define your terms, they're different here in the land of milk and honey that we call Europe.

The NAS:
Pansies.

EE:
Bushite!

Spammer:
:fluffle: :fluffle:

New Poster:
Bush!? :mp5: :sniper: :mp5:

Frisbeetaria:
Thread locked and official warnings.
ROFLMFAO!!!!!!! Oh god! ROFL! :D

Nice work leaving out the libertarian hypocrite
:rolleyes:

And the random II RPer laughing at them maniacly.

Undelia, that was really, really funny! :p

/me Nominates Undelia for 'Comment of The Year'

I feel like I left someone out.

Me.


Lunatic Goofballs: Calm down and have some tacos. :)

Wow. Is that is what Deja-vu feels like? :D

Undelia, that was really, really funny! :p

/me Nominates Undelia for 'Comment of The Year'
Hmm, honestly I felt that was all the response that the comment deserved, and your mockery is unappreciated, but I’m sure you knew that. I shall elaborate. DHomme is a communist. For him to not be hypocritical, he would have to give up all of his possessions. If he has done that, good. If not, he is hardly in a position to criticize libertarians.

Nice work leaving out the libertarian hypocrite

I have no idea what you're getting on about. He did include anarchists.

The only seperation between anarchists and libertarians is method. End result is the same. Legislating the government away to nothing instead of actually overthrowing it.

'omg keep ur grubby little welfare hands out of my pocket! that's my right to my money!1!1!1!'

I realize that not all libertarians are insane, just like I realize that not all members of every political stance are hardliners...

But this is not the thread for serious debate!

*throws streamers!* This should get a sticky and be required reading!

Hmm, honestly I felt that was all the response that the comment deserved, and your mockery is unappreciated, but I’m sure you knew that. I shall elaborate. DHomme is a communist. For him to not be hypocritical, he would have to give up all of his possessions. If he has done that, good. If not, he is hardly in a position to criticize libertarians.

Perhaps he is keeping the possessions in trust for the good of the community. :)

:rolleyes:

Undelia. You do realize that you just marked yourself as a 'Liberal Commie' by making that post. :D

Well, according to the terms of the OP.

Perhaps he is keeping the possessions in trust for the good of the community. :)
I’m so sure.
Undelia. You do realize that you just marked yourself as a 'Liberal Commie' by making that post. :D

Well, according to the terms of the OP.
*insert expletive here*

Please don't quote the whole huge thing, it makes me have to scroll down farther. Have pity for the poor mouse wheel!

Yes, you did forget someone. What about some independent party other than commies? They're not made fun of enough. (Compared to Reps ands Dems.)

*insert expletive here*
*chuckles and then logs off NS*

Uh, I don't think anarchists and libertarians are the same at all. Anarchists really focus on no capitalism, and see the state as what creates capitalism, they don't want to replace everything with capitalism like libertarians do.

And I don't really think a leftist that doesn't give everything away is hypocritical. The whole point is that everyone has their needs met, and one person giving away all their stuff isn't going to make that happen. Don't try stupid, obnoxious, a-priori rejections of radical leftism based on the personal lives of leftist people who still need to survive in capitalism just like rightists. I'd say living on a commune would be the option most in-line with communist/anarchist ideals, which I might try doing.

Thank you for including us anarchs in your mockingpage.

Edit: Oh yeah, another difference between anarchs/liberts: some anarchists actually do believe in using violence, and most believe in direct action by the people outside the electoral system, unlike most libertarians, who prefer to go by in-the-system reform.

Hmm, honestly I felt that was all the response that the comment deserved, and your mockery is unappreciated, but I’m sure you knew that. I shall elaborate. DHomme is a communist. For him to not be hypocritical, he would have to give up all of his possessions. If he has done that, good. If not, he is hardly in a position to criticize libertarians.
...Goddamn!
Ok first of all, the eyerolling, and the comment it was a response to, was almost a cut n paste job from the joke. Initially, I thought you were serious, then I realized it couldn't be anything but a joke. And I thought it was really, really funny. My reply to it was perfectly serious.
Of course, it's almost as funny now, just in a sad way.

Time for the Moderates and the Libertarians(Capitalists) and the Commies

Proletariat Commie Dog:
Capitalism is bad, it creates an economic oligarchy.

Capitalist Pig:
No it doesn't. Now get your goddamn hands out of my cookie jar.

PCD:
It's not your jar, it's the people's jar, private property is the devil.

Random Spammer:
Captialism is the r0x0r!

CP:
Why should I give my shit away so others can have it?

PCD:
It will better the community, now hand me my bong.

CP:
The greater good? What about one's own good.

PCD:
That's so selfish, what's so wrong with sacrificing your wants if it will do a world of good for someone else.

Melkor Unchained:
Objectivism flibbity flobbity floop.

CP:
Objectivism flibbity flobbity floop.
Right on.

Vetalia:
I don't mind giving to charity, just don't force me too.

PCD:
But if it were up to people, then they wouldn't do it. I would give them some of MY money, but I need it to by a new copy of the Communist Manifesto and a latte.

Vetalia:
What about free will?

PCD:
I'm all for that, except in this case. Labor based theory of price, labor based theory of price.

Moderate:
Now, now you're both incorrect and you're both flaming ideologues. Centrism is the only true and honest way, now follow me over the rainbow!

DHomme:
Damn capitalist, you're all hypocrites!

Moderate:
That's why I follow the middle path, I'm so happy ye-hee!!!

---The debate turns into some conversation about why this or that would never work and then it's forgotten.---

...Goddamn!
Ok first of all, the eyerolling, and the comment it was a response to, was almost a cut n paste job from the joke. Initially, I thought you were serious, then I realized it couldn't be anything but a joke. And I thought it was really, really funny. My reply to it was perfectly serious.
Of course, it's almost as funny now, just in a sad way.
I don’t see what could possibly have been funny about it at all.

bump

I don’t see what could possibly have been funny about it at all.
Because the post you commented on might as well have been part of the joke by the threadstarter... And because the the response you made might as well have been a part of the joke.

Anyway, I didn't mean anything bad. It's just a misunderstanding. I'll delete the post if it means a lot to you :(

Hmm, honestly I felt that was all the response that the comment deserved, and your mockery is unappreciated, but I’m sure you knew that. I shall elaborate. DHomme is a communist. For him to not be hypocritical, he would have to give up all of his possessions. If he has done that, good. If not, he is hardly in a position to criticize libertarians.
Just because DHomme is a communist doesn't mean he gets out of living in reality. He has to survive in this capitalist society just like everyone else.