NationStates Jolt Archive

they like plant pots.... they're warm

Our tests have shown this to be true. *shifty eyes*

no... i don't think i've ever been to lancashire, or no, is heysham in lancashire, cus i have driven through it to get to the isle of man if it is...

what happens in these buses any way?

*Shudders* People will die if I tell you.

they like plant pots.... they're warm

(buries kitten in garden) now if only I could remember were I planted him :p

*Shudders* People will die if I tell you.

ok then we'll leave this little topic there....

(buries kitten in garden) now if only I could remember were I planted him :p

Just put your ear to the ground and try to find the spot thats purring

http://img342.imageshack.us/img342/4338/capit7ms.jpg

Hey Blu, I think you missed something. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9740092&postcount=489)

If you can take the time to make outrageous claims, the least you can do is countenance their challenges, particularly in matters of morality. I'm really interested to see how you choose to answer this.

Hey Blu, I think you missed something. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9740092&postcount=489)

If you can take the time to make outrageous claims, the least you can do is countenance their challenges, particularly in matters of morality. I'm really interested to see how you choose to answer this.

What am I to say, you're not asking a question, I can't answer it? I've already given my side of the story.

Umm... it ends with a question. Christ.

Umm... it ends with a question. Christ.

ok, missed that, heres my answer;

My next door neighbour is in a council house, he uses the NHS, he uses the tax-payers money to fund his medical costs because of drugs... is that right? no. thats why, because i know there are some people who need these services, the poor and the elderly mainly, I am against drugs, because why should he take the taxpayers money for doing nothing? why should he live in a nice house, payed for by the public, to take drugs? and then when these drugs make him ill, why should people have to pay for him to get treatment?

it comes down to, remove these services and make the vulnerable suffer, or remove these drugs, and make the drug takers suffer? which should i do? hmm... tough one ain't it?

and before you all go blurting off about hypocracy, i don't live in a council provided house i live in a private estate bordering a council estate.

ok, missed that, heres my answer;

My next door neighbour is in a council house, he uses the NHS, he uses the tax-payers money to fund his medical costs because of drugs... is that right? no. thats why, because i know there are some people who need these services, the poor and the elderly mainly, I am against drugs, because why should he take the taxpayers money for doing nothing? why should he live in a nice house, payed for by the public, to take drugs? and then when these drugs make him ill, why should people have to pay for him to get treatment?
I think that's bullshit too, but it still ain't no kind of answer. Telling me that NHS is badly abused and welfare needs to be overhauled with doesn't answer to the larger question of why it's not socially Authoritarianism to outlaw certain types of human behvaior, be they sexual, dietary, or recreational behaviors. I don't happen to think we should be taxed in the first place, so this argument is weak at best and thoroughly exasperating at worst. There has never been a drug free civilization on the planet, and drug laws seem to be operating under the notion that they can make us become one. Say what you will about the law being designed to punish [rather than to prevent] crime, the Drug War is frequently sold to us on the basis that it can and will create a "drug free society."

it comes down to, remove these services and make the vulnerable suffer, or remove these drugs, and make the drug takers suffer? which should i do? hmm... tough one ain't it?
Or, alternatively, you can stop pretending that drug use is inevitably the cause of tax dependency. It's every bit as much of a cultural dependency as drugs are a physical or mental one: these programs have existed for years and now society really does seem to beleive that feeding money to the poor is a value worth forcing onto the rest of us. Drugs didn't cause this shit, that son of a bitch FDR did.

and before you all go blurting off about hypocracy, i don't live in a council provided house i live in a private estate bordering a council estate.
It's "hypocrisy."

Just put your ear to the ground and try to find the spot thats purring

http://img342.imageshack.us/img342/4338/capit7ms.jpg
In what way does capitalism specifically cause war, imperialism, slavery, racism, inequality or dictatorships? In fact most of those things are actually anti free market. Do you actually know what you're talking about?

Blu-Tac:

Okay, so a drug user has put himself in that position himself and doesn't deserve to have taxpayers money spent on him, right? What about obese people? Or people who are pregnant? Or people who've contracted STIs? Or people who haven't followed saftey instructions and have hurt themselves? Or people who have overdosed to commit suicide? All of them could be argued to have put themselves in that position or weighed up the risks and still decided to take the risk.

it comes down to, remove these services and make the vulnerable suffer, or remove these drugs, and make the drug takers suffer?

Even though I think drug users should get medical care, I don't see why you have to be as black and white as this anyway. You could still provide care from these services for the majority of people and not for drug-users.

I think that's bullshit too, but it still ain't no kind of answer. Telling me that NHS is bullshit and welfare needs to be done away with doesn't answer to the larger question of why it's not socially Authoritarianism to outlaw certain types of human behvaior, be they sexual, dietary, or recreational behaviors. I don't happen to think we should be taxed in the first place, so this argument is weak at best and thoroughly exasperating at worst. There has never been a drug free civilization on the planet, and drug laws seem to be operating under the notion that they can make us become one. Say what you will about the law being designed to punish [rather than to prevent] crime, the Drug War is frequently sold to us on the basis that it can and will create a "drug free society."

I never said the NHS was bullshit. I do agree it needs to be privatised, however i think that a system of government grants should be allowed to people that really need free healthcare, depending on your income, so if you earned $10,000 a year, you would get more money if you went into hospital than someone on $20,000, and someone on $100,000 would get no money because they could afford it. anyway.


Or, alternatively, you can stop pretending that drug use is inevitably the cause of tax dependency. It's every bit as much of a cultural dependency as drugs are a physical or mental one: these programs have existed for years and now society really does seem to beleive that feeding money to the poor is a value worth forcing onto the rest of us. Drugs didn't cause this shit, that son of a bitch FDR did.

I never said drugs were the cause, but I did say that they contribute to it.

It's "hypocrisy."
it's "pedantic"

How is the Conservative party beating the Socialist? No offense to the conservatives or anything, it just seems like the majority on this forum are more left wing.

I never said the NHS was bullshit. I do agree it needs to be privatised, however i think that a system of government grants should be allowed to people that really need free healthcare, depending on your income, so if you earned $10,000 a year, you would get more money if you went into hospital than someone on $20,000, and someone on $100,000 would get no money because they could afford it. anyway.
Whatever you say, but this statement seems only to be interested with the first sentence and a half of my previous post. I'm not asking you how you would restructure NHS, I'm asking you [once again] How is it not Socially Authoritarian to outlaw certain products and/or activities from one's life? Provided, before you ask, that said use doesn't in and of itself require the application of force against another person?

I never said drugs were the cause, but I did say that they contribute to it.
And for all you have said, you've not answered my original question. Maybe you should actually run for office, since you seem to be more concerned with what you didn't say than what you did say.

How is the Conservative party beating the Socialist? No offense to the conservatives or anything, it just seems like the majority on this forum are more left wing.
Indeed. Especially considering that, as of last election, there was no Conservative party to speak of, and the demand for one was, to say the leat, much smaller than this. Either they're an outgrowth of NSCL votes [unlikely, as I think many of those went to me], a new demographic entirely [a possibility, only slightly less likely than the first], or the votes are largely a fabrication. They gained 8 votes a couple of hours ago in the time it took me to look down and write a couple of posts.

Occam is spinning in his grave.

Whatever you say, but this statement seems only to be interested with the first sentence and a half of my previous post. I'm not asking you how you would restructure NHS, I'm asking you [once again] How is it not Socially Authoritarian to outlaw certain products and/or activities from one's life? Provided, before you ask, that said use doesn't in and of itself require the application of force against another person?

It's not authoritarian, it's common sense to protect people from drugs, drink etc, things that could harm them, things that could damage to them and others around them.

It's not authoritarian, it's common sense to protect people from drugs, drink etc, things that could harm them, things that could damage to them and others around them.
No, common sense is not doing it on your own. Common sense only has identity as a concept when enacted by the individual. There is no such thing as "collective common sense." I can no more make decisions for you than I can chew or digest your food.

Furthermore, yes protecting people from themselves does amount more or less to Social Authoritarianism. Preventing them from damaging others is a goal worth pursuing, but trying to prevent everyone who might will only cause you to turn your police force into a bloated, intrusive [probably corrupt] mass.

You are just as guilty as the Liberals of subsidizing the rights of the individual to the 'greater good' only you prefer to do it in terms of personal behavior as opposed to economic behavior. By attempting to subsidize man's morality, you're attempting to create a 'world without sin,' a Utopian ideal every bit as laughable as Communism. Drugs are not the problem. Force is.

No, common sense is not doing it on your own. Common sense only has identity as a concept when enacted by the individual. There is no such thing as "collective common sense." I can no more make decisions for you than I can chew or digest your food.

Furthermore, yes protecting people from themselves does amount more or less to Social Authoritarianism. Preventing them from damaging others is a goal worth pursuing, but trying to prevent everyone who might will only cause you to turn your police force into a bloated, intrusive [probably corrupt] mass.

You are just as guilty as the Liberals of subsidizing the rights of the individual to the 'greater good' only you prefer to do it in terms of personal behavior as opposed to economic behavior. By attempting to subsidize man's morality, you're attempting to create a 'world without sin,' a Utopian ideal every bit as laughable as Communism. Drugs are not the problem. Force is.

you see, you'vwe just admitted there that its good to stop people harming themselves, so why are you moaning, we believe in giving people freedoms to do what they want, as long as they don't harm themselves or others. Thats what I've been saying all along. but no, you've been arguing about how I'm denying people their freedom, I'm not, I'm just allowing people their safety.

In what way does capitalism specifically cause war, imperialism, slavery, racism, inequality or dictatorships? In fact most of those things are actually anti free market. Do you actually know what you're talking about?

Capitalism can and has been the direct cause of wars when profit and the acquiring of ressources was seen as sufficient motive to send people (most often foreigners) to their deaths. Before you ask, I don't agree that the invasion of Iraq was primarily motivated by oil, but if you want an example, try the Chaco War.

Imperialism has, for a long time, been driven by capitalism (it used to be driven by mercantalism and other reasons). Slavery is by no means contradictory with a free market.

Inequalities in living conditions are a direct consequence of capitalism, which denies the poor the most basic necessities of life, be it on a national or an international level.

As for dictatorships, they are by no means incompatible with capitalism. If they were, the US wouldn't have been propping up and installing dictatorships all over the world throughout the Cold War. Try Chile under Pinochet for an extreme example of the perfect compatibility between ruthless dictatorship and ruthless capitalism.

Oh, and...
Vote UDCP!

Prohibition in the US was a laughable disaster. The "war on drugs" is totally inefficient. Banning something only makes it attractive, especially when it remains easy to obtain.


Because it isn't being run properly, now I won't institue prohibition, however drugs will play a role in a government, they will not be the main priority, but if we have time, we will do something about them. It probably won't be a total banning but it would be something like harsher sentences for supplier or something.

NS Conservative Party

Yay Socialist democrats.... Vote Them...or else...Ill cyber kick your ass! :D

(Wait, no, it wasn't a double post... Grr... Here it is again, sorry.)

you see, you'vwe just admitted there that its good to stop people harming themselves

No, he hasn't.

I disagree with compelling people not to subject themselves to potentially harmful behaviour. Society is there to prevent people from harming one another, not to prevent them from harming themselves. Society can and maybe should inform people about the consequences of certain things, such as smoking, drinking or drug-taking, but to ban them from activities which harm no-one but themselves is both intrusive and inefficient.

Prohibition in the US was a laughable disaster. The "war on drugs" is totally inefficient. Banning something only makes it attractive, especially when it remains easy to obtain.

Vote UDCP!

Yay Socialist democrats.... Vote Them...or else...Ill cyber kick your ass! :D

you challange my Kung fu! for this you must die!!!!

round one fight!

I kick you in the nads and throw sand in your eyes "your turn"

Hey, Blue-tac, I have something to ask you. What are you smoking and where can I get some? I ask this because after reading some of your posts that you're either high or just stupid. Melkor never said that "its good to stop people harming themselves," only that one's own discretion should prevent one from going to the point of harming themselves. If some dumbass junkie wants to OD on crack, then that's entirely his or her fault. For the same reason, I find the warning labels on cigarettes stupid; I know it's dangerous because I'm inhaling smoke and if I couldn't figure out that that wasn't healthy then I'd probably have already received a Darwin Award due to my fascination with all sorts of potentially dangerous things.

I'm smart, I know that smoking a lot of crack can kill you, so I don't smokie a lot of crack. I know that if I chug an entire bottle of whiskey that I can buy over the counter it'll quite possibly kill me, but I don't do that. I also know that I can kill somebody with a baseball bat remarkably quickly with a simple blow to the back of the head, should we ban baseball now and make it illegal to own a bat? With drugs I think it would actualy be a better idea to legalize just about all of them and regulate them. Regulation means safety. In the 20s, how many people died or were otherwise poisoned or injured by either poorly made "bathtub gin" or the criminals who ran the illegal booze trade. If there's business to be done, that business will be done. If that business is illegal then it will be done by criminals. You won't ever get a drug free society, as Melkor has already pointed out, but you'd have a lot more success going for a violence free one (still impossible, but you can accomplish a lot more).

Because it isn't being run properly, now I won't institue prohibition, however drugs will play a role in a government, they will not be the main priority, but if we have time, we will do something about them. It probably won't be a total banning but it would be something like harsher sentences for supplier or something.


"Drugs will play a role in government?" That'd be amusing. :D

More seriously, you're not suggesting anything new or effective here. Harsher sentences for suppliers aren't going to reduce supplies. They're used to it. It'll just make acquiring drugs more of a "thrill", and they'll remain just as easy to get.

By the way, what's the logic in banning drugs which do less harm to consumers than cigarettes or alcohol, but not the latter?


For a party that enables you to do what you want with your own life,
Vote UDCP!

Hey, Blue-tac, I have something to ask you. What are you smoking and where can I get some? I ask this because after reading some of your posts that you're either high or just stupid. Melkor never said that "its good to stop people harming themselves," only that one's own discretion should prevent one from going to the point of harming themselves. If some dumbass junkie wants to OD on crack, then that's entirely his or her fault. For the same reason, I find the warning labels on cigarettes stupid; I know it's dangerous because I'm inhaling smoke and if I couldn't figure out that that wasn't healthy then I'd probably have already received a Darwin Award due to my fascination with all sorts of potentially dangerous things.

I'm smart, I know that smoking a lot of crack can kill you, so I don't smokie a lot of crack. I know that if I chug an entire bottle of whiskey that I can buy over the counter it'll quite possibly kill me, but I don't do that. I also know that I can kill somebody with a baseball bat remarkably quickly with a simple blow to the back of the head, should we ban baseball now and make it illegal to own a bat? With drugs I think it would actualy be a better idea to legalize just about all of them and regulate them. Regulation means safety. In the 20s, how many people died or were otherwise poisoned or injured by either poorly made "bathtub gin" or the criminals who ran the illegal booze trade. If there's business to be done, that business will be done. If that business is illegal then it will be done by criminals. You won't ever get a drug free society, as Melkor has already pointed out, but you'd have a lot more success going for a violence free one (still impossible, but you can accomplish a lot more).

With this logic I could say, "let's all make murder legal, but regulate it, because it's impossible to enforce." I've heard the argument that its impossible to enforce so many times before, its not even funny any more. and for your information, I'm not smoking anything.

No! Vote for the New British Imperialist Party! A vote for the Bolshevicks is a vote for the erradication of Monty Python reruns!

[/mud slinging]

With this logic I could say, "let's all make murder legal, but regulate it, because it's impossible to enforce."

Beeep! Wrong. It's not the same logic at all. Murder harms other people than the one who commits the act (in a rather extreme way).

"Drugs will play a role in government?" That'd be amusing. :D

More seriously, you're not suggesting anything new or effective here. Harsher sentences for suppliers aren't going to reduce supplies. They're used to it. It'll just make acquiring drugs more of a "thrill", and they'll remain just as easy to get.

By the way, what's the logic in banning drugs which do less harm to consumers than cigarettes or alcohol, but not the latter?




Did you even read what I said, I said, I wouldn't ban drugs but just place harsher sentences on the dealers... and somehow, i think 20-30 years in prison would take out a fair few of these dealers...

No! Vote for the New British Imperialist Party! A vote for the Bolshevicks is a vote for the erradication of Monty Python reruns!

[/mud slinging]

I would like to reassure voters that, if elected, we will not ban Monty Python reruns. So you can vote UDCP without fear. :D

Did you even read what I said, I said, I wouldn't ban drugs but just place harsher sentences on the dealers... and somehow, i think 20-30 years in prison would take out a fair few of these dealers...

So, wait... It would be legal to sell drugs, but people who carry out this legal activity would get what amounts to a life sentence? If you make it illegal to sell drugs, don't say you're not banning drugs, because in practical terms you are.

Guys, this is the NS General Election. We should be discussing the Lordship of the Mods, the Overthrow of Max Barry, and the elimination of spammers. Not drugs! Though it probably has something to do with it.

Vote NS Conservative Party

http://www.geocities.com/halfduplex2001/NSCONS1.gif

I would like to reassure voters that, if elected, we will not ban Monty Python reruns. So you can vote UDCP without fear. :D

Would it be propaganda free?

So, wait... It would be legal to sell drugs, but people who carry out this legal activity would get what amounts to a life sentence? If you make it illegal to sell drugs, don't say you're not banning drugs, because in practical terms you are.

Its a new idea, restrict the availability of drugs by putting harsher punishments on the dealer, and in theory they will be put of for fear of jail sentences, and there will be no more drugs left, of course it will take about 15 years t start working though. :(

Vote NS Conservative Party

http://www.geocities.com/halfduplex2001/NSCONS1.gif


Us conservatives are so marginalized that we all form into one party, and are (as of now) winning! I'll bet any money that if we win the others will demand a recount....

Us conservatives are so marginalized that we all form into one party, and are (as of now) winning! I'll bet any money that if we win the others will demand a recount....

yep they will.

The only reason you people are winning is because there are many kind of leftists. There are leftists-lite, leftists, and leftists... TO THE EXTREME RAWR.

While there is only you, united. Now, if the communist parties were to merge, you'd be screwed.

Vote NS Conservative Party

http://www.geocities.com/halfduplex2001/NSCONS1.gif


Oi! "Freedom requires responsability" could be our motto! Besides, it applies much more to the UDCP than it does to you. How is preventing people from doing certain things which, if harmful, are harmful to them alone, freedom or responsability? It's clearly not freedom, and telling people they can't do something rather than encouraging them to act responsibly and explaining why is not responsability, either.

Us conservatives are so marginalized that we all form into one party, and are (as of now) winning! I'll bet any money that if we win the others will demand a recount....

Would you be willing to send me a cheque? :D

We won't ask for a recount, because there's no way of doing one. The election is based on trust, and the assumption that no-one is pathetic enough to cheat in a fictitious election.

Oi! "Freedom requires responsability" could be our motto! Besides, it applies much more to the UDCP than it does to you. How is preventing people from doing certain things which, if harmful, are harmful to them alone, freedom or responsability? It's clearly not freedom, and telling people they can't do something rather than encouraging them to act responsibly and explaining why is not responsability, either.

Ye, you take that up with Pascalini, he invented it, not me, I'm just the forum voice for a ll this debating.

Its a new idea, restrict the availability of drugs by putting harsher punishments on the dealer, and in theory they will be put of for fear of jail sentences, and there will be no more drugs left, of course it will take about 15 years t start working though. :(

The dealers are not harming people. They are merely supplying a demand. Drug dealers don't advertise. The most they ever do is say something like "hey, you wanna buy some drugs?" If the prospective customer says no, then they generally back off because somebody will eventually come looking for them.

Your argument could easily be extended to justifying banning guns, many prescription and even over the counter medicines, ropes, and high bridges and buildings because they can easily be used to commit suicide.

Would it be propaganda free?

Of course! Ours is a fully democratic party, as is made clear in our manifesto and in the decision-making process within our party itself.

Vote for democracy! Vote for social rights, and social responsability!
Vote UDCP!

Ye, you take that up with Pascalini, he invented it, not me, I'm just the forum voice for a ll this debating.

That doesn't answer my question. How can the motto "Freedom and responsability" possibly apply to your party?

That doesn't answer my question. How can the motto "Freedom and responsability" possibly apply to your party?

And heres my answer, you ask that to pascalini cus I just posted it on the forum for him.

And heres my answer, you ask that to pascalini cus I just posted it on the forum for him.

You wouldn't be able to explain in what way your party advocates freedom, and in what way it advocates responsability? If you're a spokesperson for the party, surely you can answer that. Or at the very least get Pascalini into this thread. I'm sure a lot of voters would want to know.

You wouldn't be able to explain in what way your party advocates freedom, and in what way it advocates responsability? If you're a spokesperson for the party, surely you can answer that. Or at the very least get Pascalini into this thread. I'm sure a lot of voters would want to know.

look, we support freedom, democratic elections etc. and we believe you need responsibility to succeed in life.

As a voted I'd like to say, I don't care about the motto I just think the color pink makes the Conservative Party seem like a bunch of flaming homosexuals, the Fab 5 ones, not the manly kick my butt ones. I leave those alone.

We won't ask for a recount, because there's no way of doing one. The election is based on trust, and the assumption that no-one is pathetic enough to cheat in a fictitious election.
Somehow, I think you'd be surprised. I find it a little difficult to believe $PARTY can get a string of 8 or 10 votes in the window of a few minutes, but it's happened several times since this election began, and not just from one party.

In what way does capitalism specifically cause war, imperialism, slavery, racism, inequality or dictatorships? In fact most of those things are actually anti free market. Do you actually know what you're talking about?
war- two groups of bourgeioisie clash over resources and labour
racism- a tool by which bosses divide us
slavery- cheapest labour around
imperialism- the imposition of one market into another country, the exploitation of foreign resources to turn larger profits
inequality- how the fuck would you pass off the concept of private property if you didn't encourage inequality?
dictatorships- look at US foreign policy. Does a nice little job of giving money to the president's sponsors doesnt it?

Somehow, I think you'd be surprised. I find it a little difficult to believe $PARTY can get a string of 8 or 10 votes in the window of a few minutes, but it's happened several times since this election began, and not just from one party.

Yes, a bit like when RP went from 48 to 56 in under 30 minutes this morning... ;)

war- two groups of bourgeioisie clash over resources and labour
And Trotskyites beleive that the only proper course of action is a worldwide revolution war[/b]] to rectify this 'problem.' Pot, meet kettle.

racism- a tool by which bosses divide us
Right, because we all know every factory foreman and Wendy's store manager hates blacks. Please, try to keep your head out of the clouds.

slavery- cheapest labour around
Cheap labor is not slave labor, no matter how much you'd like to beleive it is. Slavery cannot be practiced under capitalism because, simply put, if your consumers don't have any money they can't buy anything.

imperialism- the imposition of one market into another country, the exploitation of foreign resources to turn larger profits
So you'd prefer the imposition of one country's economic system instead? Imperialism is Imperialism, whether it is furthered by economic [i]or political ends. The Trotsyite platform of "Worldwide Revolution" is still Imperialism, only with a prettier name.

inequality- how the fuck would you pass off the concept of private property if you didn't encourage inequality?
Take another stab at this one after you graduate High School. I'm sorry, but you have no idea what you're talking about here.

dictatorships- look at US foreign policy. Does a nice little job of giving money to the president's sponsors doesnt it?
Umm... that doesn't make it a Dictatorship. A dictator does.

Yes, a bit like when RP went from 48 to 56 in under 30 minutes this morning... ;)
Ehhh... wrong. We went from 48 to 52 in about ten minutes somewhere around 11AM EST, as I was campaigning in IRC. The rest have come in gradually since then, over the course of the last 7 or so hours.

Interestingly enough, by contrast, the NSCL surged ahead with ten votes shortly after that when Blu-tac signed back on.

And Trotskyites beleive that the only proper course of action is a worldwide revolution war[/b]] to rectify this 'problem.' Pot, meet kettle.
We admit war is a highly authoritarian measure but see it as a necessity if we are to ever overthrow the ruling class


Right, because we all know every factory foreman and Wendy's store manager hates blacks. Please, try to keep your head out of the clouds.

No but why do you think bosses can get away with charging jobs for lower prices in black areas? Why do you think people hate immigrants and see them as the root of al evil- driving down their wages, stealing their houses, etc? Why are fascist groups like the BNP gaining prominence all over europe


Cheap labor is not slave labor, no matter how much you'd like to beleive it is. Slavery cannot be practiced under capitalism because, simply put, if your consumers don't have any money they can't buy anything.

So? A couple of cheap meals a day to them and you can still churn profit in your non-slave areas


So you'd prefer the imposition of one country's economic system instead? Imperialism is Imperialism, whether it is furthered by economic [i]or political ends. The Trotsyite platform of "Worldwide Revolution" is still Imperialism, only with a prettier name.

Wrong, a worldwide revolution is a REVOLUTION, as in done by the working classes of other countries and not by forced imposition.


Take another stab at this one after you graduate High School. I'm sorry, but you have no idea what you're talking about here.

Way to dismiss.

Umm... that doesn't make it a Dictatorship. A dictator does.

http://www.omnicenter.org/warpeacecollection/dictators.htm#amin

LOL! Sounds good Melkor Unchained... :p

http://www.geocities.com/halfduplex2001/NSCONS1.gif

i am so ashamed to be a left winger right now. Once again, the left votes are splited into several way. Result? the conservative party has more votes than the democratic socialists. Pathetic.

I am glad this is not a real life election, or i am going to beat up some communists for their plain idiocy of having their own *communist* party that will NEVER fucking fly.

VOTE UDCP. WE HELP THE CONSERVATIVES TO WIN!

We admit war is a highly authoritarian measure but see it as a necessity if we are to ever overthrow the ruling class
Two wrongs make a right. Lovely. Philosophy is meaningless without consistency.

No but why do you think bosses can get away with charging jobs for lower prices in black areas?
People do that mainly because there are fewer resources in those areas and therefore, not as much demand. It has nothing to do with their skin color.

Why do you think people hate immigrants and see them as the root of al evil- driving down their wages, stealing their houses, etc? Why are fascist groups like the BNP gaining prominence all over europe
Because people are idiots.

So? A couple of cheap meals a day to them and you can still churn profit in your non-slave areas
As opposed to the nothing most of them would get without the job? Fifty cents an hour USD is more money than you can shake a stick at in most countries.

Wrong, a worldwide revolution is a REVOLUTION, as in done by the working classes of other countries and not by forced imposition.
Oh, OK. I suppose I can live with that, since it'll never happen. Thank Christ.

Way to dismiss.
Yep. That's what I do with bullshit arguing points. When your premise makes no sense I dismiss is outright to save myself the effort of attempting to deconstruct it for the benefit of someone who will refuse to understand. We don't know each other, so neither of us wants to back down. Is there anything wrong with that? No, but you have to understand that I'm not debating you here for your sake or mine, but for any one of the many people reading this who might actually be prepared to think about it.


http://www.omnicenter.org/warpeacecollection/dictators.htm#amin
You know, the oxygen is kind of thin up there where those clouds are. The shortage of oxygen you must have been getting to your brain during the course of time that your head has been planted about halfway through the stratosphere has been adding up.

Just because American politicans have their heads up their asses does not mean Capitalism endorses dictatorships. I view our administration as betraying Capitalist principles by practicing these meddling politics and this Neoconservative-type PNAC bullshit [which, by the way, has its roots in Trotsyism].

And now that I actually read your link DHomme, I'm forced to point out that the site lists Adolf Hitler as "Supported by the U.S. Government," if I'm reading this correctly. Somehow, I'd have thought going to war with him and eradicating his "Reich" inside 12 years would somehow prevent us from "supporting" him.

EDIT: and please, come in and yell at me for FDR allowing our corporations to trade with him, since I'm fully aware that's probably going to be your rebuttal. G'won!

i am so ashamed to be a left winger right now. Once again, the left votes are splited into several way. Result? the conservative party has more votes than the democratic socialists. Pathetic.

I am glad this is not a real life election, or i am going to beat up some communists for their plain idiocy of having their own *communist* party that will NEVER fucking fly.
YOU GUYS ARENT SOCIALISTS!
What the fuck did you expect!
The liberals, the communists and the leninists to all get along????
Doesnt happen like that, our ideas are too different!

its so funny, leftists supposedly take a greater look at the interest of the WHOLE society.

Buuttt , its sooo fucking important to have our own cool little marxist parties, so even if that means letting George Bush win, oh FUCKING WELL. At least we can call ourselves marxists as the world gets destroyed. :)

So yeah, goooooo communists!

VOTE ESP - WORDS ARE JUST WORDS, BUT JELLY SANDWICHES ARE TASTY. FREE JELLY SANDWICHES FOR ALL!

Two wrongs make a right. Lovely. Philosophy is meaningless without consistency.
No, it's a sad necessity. There is no alternative. To end ceaseless war and destruction we must have a final brief period of it.


People do that mainly because there are fewer resources in those areas and therefore, not as much demand. It has nothing to do with their skin color.

Nope, it has nothing to do with their skin colour. Except you will find that white people still care more about white people than black people. Consider the massive racial segregation that still occurs there. Do you think this is ever distinguished from the economic segregation?


Because people are idiots.

Thanks to misinformation from the media


As opposed to the nothing most of them would get without the job? Fifty cents an hour USD is more money than you can shake a stick at in most countries.

Ah so slavery is now just? Cheers.


Oh, OK. I suppose I can live with that, since it'll never happen. Thank Christ.

South America...


Yep. That's what I do with bullshit arguing points. When your premise makes no sense I dismiss is outright to save myself the effort of attempting to deconstruct it for the benefit of someone who will refuse to understand. We don't know each other, so neither of us wants to back down. Is there anything wrong with that? No, but you have to understand that I'm not debating you here for your sake or mine, but for any one of the many people reading this who might actually be prepared to think about it.

Lets keep this civil.
Sorry, I shouldnt have been a dick about a subject you didnt want to handle arguing about


You know, the oxygen is kind of thin up there where those clouds are. The shortage of oxygen you must have been getting to your brain during the course of time that your head has been planted about halfway through the stratosphere has been adding up.

Now what did I say about civility?


Just because American politicans have their heads up their asses does not mean Capitalism endorses dictatorships. I view our administration as betraying Capitalist principles by practicing these meddling politics and this Neoconservative-type PNAC bullshit [which, by the way, has its roots in Trotsyism].

America is a bastion of capitalism. Even you uber-randians have to get this- America=freer market than damn near most other places. In prcaticality at least if not in law.

its so funny, leftists supposedly take a greater look at the interest of the WHOLE society.

Buuttt , its sooo fucking important to have our own cool little marxist parties, so even if that means letting George Bush win, oh FUCKING WELL. At least we can call ourselves marxists as the world gets destroyed. :)

So yeah, goooooo communists!

there are some irreconcilable differences between the RTP and the DSP. Maybe the main one being that you're not actually socialists.

As I write this, the conservative party has 66 votes. Does this forum even have 66 conservatives????

Tremerica: I think most of them are coming from regional advertisings. There aren't 66 conservatives that post regularly on this forum, but there are actually a number of them elsewhere in the game.

Vote for William Jennings Bryan in 1896
Remember the Crime of 1873!
http://www.authentichistory.com/images/postcivilwar/pcw_timeline/1896_william_jennings_bryan_01.jpg
...oh and

Vote for the Reason Party

Paid for by A-PAC

there are some irreconcilable differences between the RTP and the DSP. Maybe the main one being that you're not actually socialists.


Or maybe because I actually give a shit about having actual progressive policies being implmented for the GREATER good of the people instead of having our own niche party that will never win power. :)


and there were only 62 conservative votes like half an hour ago when i made my first post. This poll might be rigged.

and there were only 62 conservative votes like half an hour ago when i made my first post. This poll might be rigged.
Thats not as bad as the 48-60 vote jump they had a few hours ago, and the 15-30 wave that brought them into the running to begin with. For the first 36 or so hours of the election, they were very far behind.

[snippage]
Hey, didn't you silly on with us? :(

Hey, didn't you silly on with us? :(
I said I supported it. I am also quite nonsensical and never make any sense. Therefore I'm supporting every party. You'll see at least one ad by me for each party.

I change my mind at this, let's just have fun.

http://img265.imageshack.us/img265/2983/brain5pj.png

http://www.reubenfowkes.net/images/main/dream%20factory/Gerasimov,%20Lenin%20on%20the%20Tribune.jpg
Goodbye, Lenin, hello freedom!
Vote for your Freedom, individuality, and absurdity.

Paid for by A-PAC

Or maybe because I actually give a shit about having actual progressive policies being implmented for the GREATER good of the people instead of having our own niche party that will never win power. :)

Or maybe cos you're a bunch of reformist, populist, centrists. You cant zigzag about trying to gain votes from all over the place. You have to take a stand either for or against capitalism

Or maybe cos you're a bunch of reformist, populist, centrists. You cant zigzag about trying to gain votes from all over the place. You have to take a stand either for or against capitalism
You want you ideals implemented by your own means, which is slim to nothing. Agnostic something something wants a little bit of real reform. Think of Milton Friedman, the Austrians don't like him because he wants a little taste of real freedom instead of planning for ideals that may never come true. [/rant]

GIRRNS NEWS
Approx 9:15 pm GMT TIME
LESS THAN 27 HOURS LEFT!
FINAL UPDATE UNTIL CONCLUSION

VOTES: 385 Votes

Democratic Socialist Party 60 15.58%
Revolutionary Trotskyist Party 23 5.97%
United Democratic Communist Party 38 9.87%
Votes 121 Votes 31%

NS Classic Liberals 36 9.35%
NS Conservative Party 63 16.36%
Reason Party 62 16.10%
Vote 161 Votes 42%

New British Imperialist Party 38 9.87%
GREATER RIGHT: 199 Votes, 52%

Emphatically Silly Party 47 12.21%
Mole and Other Burrowing Rodents Alliance 18 4.68%

As the elections close, the mudslinging is on.

The Right is making staggering gains as NBIP has tied the UDCP for 5th and the RP and NSCP are 1st and 2nd still respectively.

The RTP is making agressive moves hammering the DSP and UDCP for their moderate socialist dogma in hopes of a late rally. The Trotskyites fear MOBRA might even overcome them.

Speaking of MOBRA, they are maintaining levels and advertising. The ESP is not doing as well, but both likely will join. They have many common bonds in their tone, and they together are a very sizeable party.

The Socialists in the DSP and UDCP are ripping the ESP and NBIP. This might not bode well if they wish to not be a minority. The independents nearly have a larger a bloc (NBIP, ESP, MOBRA).

NBIP appears to wish to be in the right alliance as it makes fun of socialists likely due to the tough nature of some socialists' opinion on the Brits.

The Reason party is also beginning to be vocally opposed to the Conservatives Party. As well, Melkor (a mod) is being vitriolic in its attack on the Conservative's stance.

PREDICTION:
NBIP and NSCP will ally. The ESP and MOBRA will ally. RP and NSCL will ally. The UDCP and DSP will ally. GIRRNS predicts an allying of ESP/MOBRA with NBIP/NSCP to gain a near majority. The RP/NSCL and UDCP/DSP will then ally to form a minority. RTP will remain alone yet will push the center alliance to the left and like get compromise on some free market policies of RP/NSCL.

OPINION:
NationStates need this. It needs an actual political body made upon principled views not solar paneling and dolphin protection.
All parties have done reasonably enough to create a real viewpoint. The lack of a centrist party is disconcerning, but in the end beneficial to the remaining parties.
GIRRNS believes in the end there is one party that should be chosen.
It's not the Revolutionary Trotsky Party. The RTP is the only real communist party, and its views are true to its name. The mixing of democracy and communism/socialism is possible, but the true Marxist would put principle over a cheap political trick (adding democratic to a name.)
We also don't endorse the Emphatic Silly Party. They are an oddity, yet represent what most NS are. Silly. There funloving views and nonmudslinging nature is very compendable, and GIRRNS is perfectly fine that they will be the shaker in the end.
In the end, we choose the NationStates Conservative Party.
The Conservative Party is not a beacon of perfection that should be followed through and through. Its views if it is the main party of the new parliament will cause much bickering and more unReasonable mudslinging.
BUT, NS needs to be more mature, its need more acceptance of character and moral integrity.
The idea of opposing all that can be opposed and being overdramatic to prove a point makes the Jolt forums off limits for people who want a real discussion.
The Cons offer a light to all views different.
The idea of freedom being equivalent to anarchy is false.
People who see child absuse, sexual abuse, mistreatment of women ARE likely to follow these.
Having a society that considers no morality in its system, doesn't provide for a rational population.
Freedom is a choice, and the Conservatives are far less 'oppressive' than any on the left.
The freedom of striving for a job and feeding your family is more important in GIRRNS's views than absolute right to abort a fetus. Though their view is too extreme currently.
Freedom is also best done when a society is based on modesty in conversation, nature, and change.

Thus GIRRNS wishes all to support NSCP and create a NS were polite debate and acceptance of traditionally acceptable views are not bombarted by activist hippies who don't want anyone to make negative of any action they have done in their lives.

Peace be with you,
George Allen
GIRRNS PRESS

No, it's a sad necessity. There is no alternative. To end ceaseless war and destruction we must have a final brief period of it.
Wait, you consider 150 years of unparalleled techonological progress [brought on by Capitalism] "war and destruction?" No wonder so few sensible people take Marx seriously.

Nope, it has nothing to do with their skin colour. Except you will find that white people still care more about white people than black people. Consider the massive racial segregation that still occurs there. Do you think this is ever distinguished from the economic segregation?
Ummm.... yes. Yes it is. If racial segregation were the be-all and end-all of all
social policy in this country, OJ would have been convicted by an wll white jury instead of the other way around.

At a grassroots level, the people in this country generally aren't terribly racist, save for in certain areas. Racism is collectivism at its worst, and it's only practiced by small-minded, irrational people. It's not my fault that most of them seem to fall on the economic right, and it's not Capitalism's fault that some of these people have in fact enjoyed some share of power. For every ZOMG RACIST there is out there running a company, there's probably ten that aren't. The whole point of Capitalism and commercial success it to have a more or less universal appeal. Keeping one demographic down, be it an economic, social, or cultural one, never did anyone any good.

Ah so slavery is now just? Cheers.
This is like talking to a wall. My point is that it's not slavery. This is the part where you change gears and admit that it's not [because they are being paid], but that it's close enough.

South America...
The rest of the world...

Lets keep this civil.
Sorry, I shouldnt have been a dick about a subject you didnt want to handle arguing about
Doesn't seem like you're arguing anything here either. And no, I don't want to handle shit. It makes my hands dirty and smelly. Someone telling me that property rights somehow automatically indicates 'inequality' is tantamount to a three year old telling me how to handle my mortage.

America is a bastion of capitalism. Even you uber-randians have to get this- America=freer market than damn near most other places. In prcaticality at least if not in law.
Sadly, this does not mean that everything we do adheres to Capitalistic ideals. Observe that we possess a welfare program and we take money from our citizens whenever they earn or exchange it. Neither of those are "Capitalism" in its purest sense either. Nor is a head-in-colon foreign policy.

I have betrayed myself....I don't want to be serious and sensible anymore. :(

You want you ideals implemented by your own means, which is slim to nothing. Agnostic something something wants a little bit of real reform.[/rant]

I think there is only one way to escape this system (lets not get into that argument now) and that is not appealing to popular sentiment.
"The revolutionary programme must reflect the objective aims of the working class and not the backwardness of the workers"
Tiny reforms are useless. Look at Salvador Allende or the Labour party. Both made leway towards building up class consciessnous (sp?) in their own countries but were soon smashed by right-wingers soon after

-snip-
Hey look, NS has its own Fox News Network.

Or maybe cos you're a bunch of reformist, populist, centrists. You cant zigzag about trying to gain votes from all over the place. You have to take a stand either for or against capitalism


Nah you know what? I actually want to feed the starving child, provide health care to those who cant afford private health insurance and make sure that poor students can go to university instead of mentally masturbating how cool is it to have a communist society. Becuase my *stand* is not as important as the starvation of a child, the health of another individual, or the oppression against transsexuals and homosexuals.

I said I supported it. I am also quite nonsensical and never make any sense. Therefore I'm supporting every party. You'll see at least one ad by me for each party.

I change my mind at this, let's just have fun.
Meh. I just thought of a really useful way of gaining favour amongst the other parties:

ALLY WITH THE ESP - WE CAN BE YOUR FUN-LOVIN' SIDE WHILST YOU GAIN GLOBAL DOMINANCE! A DISTRACTION TO THE MASSES WITH CRAM AND CHEDDAR!

Maybe we can claim we actually did something then :D

PS - MOBRA, if you need a topside liason, give us a bell. NBIP, if you need help with the damn colonials, ESP is working on a MAC gun in the shape of a blunderbuss. Why shoot the enemy when you can shoot their country? :p

ESP - NOT REALLY EVIL BUT HEY, THIS IS POLITICS BABY

I think there is only one way to escape this system (lets not get into that argument now) and that is not appealing to popular sentiment.
"The revolutionary programme must reflect the objective aims of the working class and not the backwardness of the workers"
Tiny reforms are useless. Look at Salvador Allende or the Labour party. Both made leway towards building up class consciessnous (sp?) in their own countries but were soon smashed by right-wingers soon after
Have plunging head first into revolution ever created your ideal states? And if it has, has it ever lasted for very long? (Long-run VS Short-run)

Melkor Im gonna go to sleep now. Will respond tomorrow if have time but also have history coursework to hand in.

Melkor Im gonna go to sleep now. Will respond tomorrow if have time but also have history coursework to hand in.
Mmkay. There will be plenty of time in Parliament too, in case it actually gets anything done this time.

http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/3018/melkor2nb.png
This guy didn't vote for Reason. Now Melkor is going to fuck up his shit.

reason? Reason can be unreasonable.



Vote UDCP , HELP THE CONSERVATIVE TO WIN!

http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/3018/melkor2nb.png
This guy didn't vote for Reason. Now Melkor is going to fuck up his shit.

Oooooh no, he's not fucking up my shit!

*puts shit in safehouse*

http://www.afghania.com/modules/My_eGallery/gallery/Fun/cat%20being%20gun%20down.jpg
Vote for the Emphatically Silly Party...don't make him shoot the kitten.
Paid for by the A-PAC

Vote UDCP , HELP THE CONSERVATIVE TO WIN!

Wha...?

reason? Reason can be unreasonable.
"....."

That's all I can say.

"....."

Wha...?
He’s talking about how your party further splits the left vote.

Mmkay. There will be plenty of time in Parliament too, in case it actually gets anything done this time.

Yeah, what the fuck went on last time?

He’s talking about how your party further splits the left vote.

Yeah, I can see that now. Looking at the poll results, I must shudder.

*shudder*

"Vote ESP!"

That's all I can say.

"Go on then!"
Fixed. :)

I am a she, thanks.

Yeah, what the fuck went on last time?
Nothing, if I remember correctly. These elections are great, but they seem to lose steam once they're actually done. Last time, the people who became MPs didn't seem to be thoroughly interested in doing much debate. When they did, it wasn't much different than the debates which normally take place here, so I guess many of us probably didn't see much of a point.

I do find it curious though, why Arridia would allow Parliament to have only 25 seats, with a community as diverse as ours. It should have a lot more, methinks.

Nothing, if I remember correctly. These elections are great, but they seem to lose steam once they're actually done. Last time, the people who became MPs didn't seem to be thoroughly interested in doing much debate. When they did, it wasn't much different than the debates which normally take place here, so I guess many of us probably didn't see much of a point.

I do find it curious though, why Arridia would allow Parliament to have only 25 seats, with a community as diverse as ours. It should have a lot more, methinks.

Yeah, I find that interesting. I think 50 seats would even it out a bit. 40-45, maybe.

Yeah, I find that interesting. I think 50 seats would even it out a bit. 40-45, maybe.
Wasn't that discussed last time?

no, because last time there were 50 seats to begin with.

no, because last time there were 50 seats to begin with.
Then it makes no sense what-so-fucking-ever to lower the number of seats when we have a more diverse selection this time.

Now is the time for the voters on the Left to decide just what's more important to them: Social or Economic Policy.

If you believe Social policy is more important, I need votes to keep the Conservatives out. If Economics is your primary concern, you should probably stick with the pinko DSP. Assuming anyone on the Left actually hasn't cast their vote yet, and is actually reading this, I implore you to consider this.

EDIT: I take that back, since the DSP is not as far behind as I had thought. Dammitall!

Now is the time for the voters on the Left to decide just what's more important to them: Social or Economic Policy.

If you believe Social policy is more important, I need votes to keep the Conservatives out. If Economics is your primary concern, you should probably stick with the pinko DSP. Assuming anyone on the Left actually hasn't cast their vote yet, and is actually reading this, I implore you to consider this.
SICK OF BEING TOLD WHAT TO DO?

VOTE ESP - WE KNOW WHAT YOU'RE SEEING, AND IT INVOLVES HYPOCRITE

If you copy this, I was referring to myself. See? I'm telling them what to do, which is why they shouldn't vote for others...¬_¬

My only concern, as of this moment, is that the silly parties will not actually act silly in parliament and instead will attempt to sneak in some sort of hidden agenda.

Vote for Melkor
or Your Ass is Grass and He's a Lawnmower

or you could

Vote for the ESP and Receive a Free Hat

The choice is clear, you decide.

Paid for by A-PAC

If the DSP, RTP, and the UDCP join together they could create a majority. I know that won't happen, but still, can't we work out our differences to beat the CP?

Now is the time for the voters on the Left to decide just what's more important to them: Social or Economic Policy.

If you believe Social policy is more important, I need votes to keep the Conservatives out. If Economics is your primary concern, you should probably stick with the pinko DSP. Assuming anyone on the Left actually hasn't cast their vote yet, and is actually reading this, I implore you to consider this.

EDIT: I take that back, since the DSP is not as far behind as I had thought. Dammitall!
Why don't you consider coalitions to keep the conservatives out? (Coming from a proud DSP-er)

My only concern, as of this moment, is that the silly parties will not actually act silly in parliament and instead will attempt to sneak in some sort of hidden agenda.
Oh yeah, I forgot to mention, the ESP are all for wierd genetic experiments on Macaws to make them pyschic and therefore able to control the world as our fascist overlords. It's all in the manifesto...

Why don't you consider coalitions to keep the conservatives out? (Coming from a proud DSP-er)
I'm not going to join any wide reaching coalitions either way, if I can help it. The Conservatives and I are likely to share a lot of common ground when it comes to economic policy, but coalition or no I'm probably going to vote against their hair-brained social policies on general principle. Social Libertarians [even those on the Left] have got nothing to worry about from me.

I think the ESP, the NBIP, and MOBRA should form a non-alliance alliance.

I'm not going to join any wide reaching coalitions either way, if I can help it. The Conservatives and I are likely to share a lot of common ground when it comes to economic policy, but coalition or no I'm probably going to vote against their hair-brained social policies on general principle. Social Libertarians [even those on the Left] have got nothing to worry about from me.
See we don't both end up backing a minority Liberal government.
IE: Classic Liberals. (Are they actually getting through?)

I think the ESP, the NBIP, and MOBRA should form a non-alliance alliance.
Yes, I can see it now. With Colin the hamster as our massive mascot, the huge network of underground tunnels built by MOBRA and the giant Blunderbuss MAC gun provided by NBIP, we can't fail to look cool.

VOTE ESP - WE'RE ALL FOR ARMING RODENTS

VOTE ESP - WE'RE ALL FOR ARMING RODENTS
You keep adding things to your platform, don't you?

If the Leftists want to stay strong, they must form some grand alliance. That will only strengthen them.

You keep adding things to your platform, don't you?
A good party moves with the will of the populace.

VOTE ESP - NOW ON WHEELS

VOTE ESP - WE'RE ALL FOR ARMING RODENTS
sounds more like a MORBA/RTP coalition to me :P

Vote for the ESP, what's the worst that could happen? :)

sounds more like a MORBA/RTP coalition to me :P
Hey, this could be great - the independents could become part of the coalition of the acronym.

"Hey, who'd you vote today?"

"ESP, but only because they's part of thuh MOBRANBIPESPRTP group's stance on rodent-based warfare"

VOTE ESP - WE KNOW WHAT YOU'RE WANTING, AND IT INVOLVES HOTH THE ICE PLANET

My guess is that the NSCP will begin to slow down tonight.

If the Leftists want to stay strong, they must form some grand alliance. That will only strengthen them.
Shut up why don’t ya, Dingbat.
Enough with the yapping, huh.
http://www.apocalypsefiction.com/isstwo/arch.jpg
Incidentally, this is the kind of man who votes for the Conservative Party. Keep that in mind when you cast yourself in with their lot.

-This has been a privately funded public service announcement by Undelia. Remember folks, be Reasonable, vote for the Reason Party.

Well, we need to do something to impede the NSCP...

...Do we really want their "morals" imposed on us?

Well, we need to do something to impede the NSCP...
I'm right here. Don't worry :D

I managed to recapture the lead, thanks once again to the wonderful world of IRC. I hope I can hold it this time.

...Do we really want their "morals" imposed on us?
No, but in fairness I wouldn't want your economic "morals" imposed on me either. If you didn't already know. ;)

I'm right here. Don't worry :D

I managed to recapture the lead, thanks once again to the wonderful world of IRC. I hope I can hold it this time.


No, but in fairness I wouldn't want your economic "morals" imposed on me either. If you didn't already know. ;)
You'll probably have the most votes by a slim margin, the USDP is doing far better than I had expected.

I'm right here. Don't worry :D

I managed to recapture the lead, thanks once again to the wonderful world of IRC. I hope I can hold it this time.


No, but in fairness I wouldn't want your economic "morals" imposed on me either. If you didn't already know. ;)

1: Hahaha. :D

2: Possibly. Your party is far better than the NSCP, whatever the case.

3: That's just the thing. My policy is about not forcing people into things. Better to let things develop over the decades than to rush "it".

On a side note... If the Archie Bunkers win this election, I'll shove a spoon up my ass. Pics will be sent by request.

Shut up why don’t ya, Dingbat.
Enough with the yapping, huh.
http://www.apocalypsefiction.com/isstwo/arch.jpg
Incidentally, this is the kind of man who votes for the Conservative Party. Keep that in mind when you cast yourself in with their lot. [/COLOR]
Actually, wasn't archie was a union democrat?... ;)

http://www.geocities.com/halfduplex2001/NSCONS1.gif

Actually, archie was a union democrat... ;)

http://www.geocities.com/halfduplex2001/NSCONS1.gif

Anybody can be a Union Democrat and still be a bigotted wanker.

Prevent bigotted wankers from winning the election. Vote for another party, damnit, or I'll shove this

http://www.vahistorical.org/sva2003/spoon.gif

up my ass. Please, save my ass from imminent danger. Vote for the Reason Party (the Democratic Socialists can go fornicate themselves with an iron rod). I say this because my party (the UDCP) has only ~40 votes. :p

On a side note... If the Archie Bunkers win this election, I'll shove a spoon up my ass. Pics will be sent by request.
I'll take three.


Vote for Melkor Unchained
Or Your Ass is Grass...
and He's a Lawnmower http://www.randomfoo.com/screenshots/lawnmower/lawnmower.jpg

Paid for by A-PAC

VOTE FOR THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST PARTY

YOU'VE SEEN WHAT THE CONSERVATIVES HAVE DONE TO THE U.S. AND U.K.

ARE YOU READY FOR A CHANGE THEN VOTE FOR THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST PARTY!!

Please, don't make Potaria shove a spoon up his ***. Conserve your freedom by voting for the Reason Party.

Paid for by A-PAC

Vote for the Party who uses the biggest, most colourful letters.

This thing goes on until the tenth! :eek:

No, till the fifth. The forums are loacted in Britain, and the Europeans use the DD-MM-YYYY format as opposed to the MM-DD-YYYY one employed by us crazies in the US. It ends on October 5th, at about 7pm EST.

Vote for the Party who uses the biggest, most colourful letters.
Vote Reason Party!
No, till the fifth. The forums are loacted in Britain, and the Europeans use the DD-MM-YYYY format as opposed to the MM-DD-YYYY one employed by us crazies in the US. It ends on October 5th, at about 7pm EST.
I mean, just look out how Reasonable the guy is.

This thing goes on until the tenth! :eek:
It's October, not May.

It's turning out like the German elections! No actual result, but a lot of angry politicians claiming victory and then grudgingly talking about coalitions...
DSP and Reason Party? Why Not. :D

It's turning out like the German elections! No actual result, but a lot of angry politicians claiming victory and then grudgingly talking about coalitions...
DSP and Reason Party? Why Not. :D
Transitional? I was trying to explore the thought.

It's turning out like the German elections! No actual result, but a lot of angry politicians claiming victory and then grudgingly talking about coalitions...
DSP and Reason Party? Why Not. :D
Melkor would never enter into a coalition with anyone. They would only compromise his Reason.

VOTE FOR THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST PARTY!!!VOTE FOR THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST PARTY

ARE YOU READY FOR A CHANGE?

VOTE FOR THE DSP AND ECONOMIC EQUALITY WILL RAIN SUPREME!!!

VOTE FOR THE DSP AND THE PEOPLE OF YOUR NATION WILL RESPECT YOU AND GIVE YOU THE SUPPORT YOU NEED!!!

VOTE FOR THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST PARTY

DSP and Reason Party? Why Not. :D
I never thought I'd see the day.

but, to answer your question, it would depend too much on the issue. I can't see a coalition existing in any sort of maintainable capacity, as we'll agree on a number of thnigs and disagree on still more. A compromise between DSP and Reason economic policy would make it very difficult for either of us to devise one in accordance with our principles, and since I don't compromise [if you haven't noticed ;) ] this would mean any coalition would either have to be a strictly social one, or it would require the DSP to completely abandon its economic platform, which is something I don't see as particularly likely.

Melkor would never enter into a coalition with anyone. They would only compromise his Reason.
About that (although this probably isn't the place or the time):
What is the reasonable justification for property rights? What is the reasonable jusitification for the assumptions you have to make in order to justify property rights?

I am officially endorsing the Conservative Party. Victory Will Be Ours!

THERE'S NO REASON NOT TO VOTE FOR THE REASON PARTY.



If there actually is an alliance betwen the RP and the DSP....then fuck me running. I never thought I'd see the day.

If there actually is an alliance betwen the RP and the DSP....then fuck me running. I never thought I'd see the day.
I was joking, people.
As far as I am aware, I'm not even running for MP this time round - my arrangement with the DSP is not one of authority. I don't speak for the DSP in these matters, but if anyone was to create a stable majority government, it's quite obvious that at this point coalitions would have to be made.

About that (although this probably isn't the place or the time):
What is the reasonable justification for property rights? What is the reasonable jusitification for the assumptions you have to make in order to justify property rights?
Well, I’m sure Melkor could “justify” them far more coherently and eloquently than I, but I shall try.

You get money through a transaction, be it from investment returns, profit, the sell of your labor etc. You use this to purchase property. You should have the right to do with this property what you wish as long as you don’t infringe on another person's right to use their property as they wish. Proper use of one's property includes willing it to your descendants, building a residence, setting up a business, creating a nudist colony, etc. again.

Well, I’m sure Melkor could “justify” them far more coherently and eloquently than I, but I shall try.

You get money through a transaction, be it from investment returns, profit, the sell of your labor etc. You use this to purchase property. You should have the right to do with this property what you wish as long as you don’t infringe on another person's right to use their property as they wish. Proper use of one's property includes willing it to your descendants, building a residence, setting up a business, creating a nudist colony, etc. again.
The problem arises is when it comes to what 'ought' to be.

The problem arises is when it comes to what 'ought' to be.
Which is something the Reason Party seeks to rectify.

Which is something the Reason Party seeks to rectify.
Then good luck, we're all counting on you.

I vote reason.

All of a sudden the votes for the NSCP stopped.

1: Hahaha. :D


On a side note... If the Archie Bunkers win this election, I'll shove a spoon up my ass. Pics will be sent by request.

Thats almost enough to make me vote for them. LOL

They have actually been stopped most of the time. I've noticed their numbers take two memorable leaps. Mine have too, but I've got IRC logs to prove those :p

Still, what I think we're seeing here is an outgrowth of the unspoken Conservatives, many of whom choose not to debate here because it doesn't seem to be a particularly worthwhile use of their time. I would guess that most of these votes are coming from a propaganda campaign that has taken place largely within the game itself, probably via a regional message board or telegramming campaign.

I've realized lately that most of the economic right [here, at least] isn't noticed mainly because it's not quite as rabid as the left.

About that (although this probably isn't the place or the time):
What is the reasonable justification for property rights? What is the reasonable jusitification for the assumptions you have to make in order to justify property rights?

It begins with labor. Since we assume that people have the right to their own body, we assume that they have a right to labor, which is an economic value. Since we recognize the ownership of an economic value, we must respect property rights. This also means that, to respect one's right to their labor, we must also respect the product of that labor, be it a harvest or wages.

-snip-
Blue-Tac's region, Elite Conservative Circuit, seems to be the center of the machine. They're spreading the words and posting updates on the RHQ. That's actually a good idea, but I think they've pushed their limit. They'll either keep up the pace or have a massive jump towards the end. The joke parties aren't as much a factor now as they were, the RTP is basically dead and the Leftists are trying to work something out. If te Reason Party can keep it's vote count rising at a healthy rate, the NSCP will be a softer voice in parliament.

Blue-Tac's region, Elite Conservative Circuit, seems to be the center of the machine. They're spreading the words and posting updates on the RHQ. That's actually a good idea, but I think they've pushed their limit. They'll either keep up the pace or have a massive jump towards the end. The joke parties aren't as much a factor now as they were, the RTP is basically dead and the Leftists are trying to work something out. If te Reason Party can keep it's vote count rising at a healthy rate, the NSCP will be a softer voice in parliament.
Yeah, I hope I can hold on. This election is looking like a damn good one.

Yeah, I hope I can hold on. This election is looking like a damn good one.
It's for damn sure more exciting than last time. Last time there were no real worries, the outcome was fairly predictable.

Oh yes and...


Vote for the Reason Party, There's No Reason Not To

SAVE THE BABY FETUSES!!!

vote conservative

The Reason Party and the Classic Liberals have completely shifted positions, but no worries.

The Reason Party and the Classic Liberals have completely shifted positions, but no worries.
And had either of us not existed for the previous election or this one, we'd have beaten the pants off the nearest contender, presumably. Still, the net outcome is more or less the same I suppose. We have a strange relationship, it seems :p

The Reason Party and the Classic Liberals have completely shifted positions, but no worries.
If I do recall, we had the second largest percentage. We would have had first, but we lost that by one vote.

I voted for THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST PARTY!
And so can you! :)

***

DON'T VOTE FOR THE "SILLY" PARTIES!!!

Voting for the "silly" parties such as the "ESP" result in weaker minority goverments!

Paid Ad by TCR

nah... its good ;)

And had either of us not existed for the previous election or this one, we'd have beaten the pants off the nearest contender, presumably. Still, the net outcome is more or less the same I suppose. We have a strange relationship, it seems :p

I really wonder how many votes we are stealing from each other.

I think that combined we catch a wide swath of moderates. Conservatives may not be willing to vote for us, but may vote for you, and liberals vice versa.

Whether you're a Socialist, a Classical Liberal, or even an emphatically silly person, please conserve your freedom by voting for the Reason Party or the DSP.

Paid for by A-PAC

Is that too much?

Neo, I resent your attempts to create a two party system, here. There is no better way to ensure that a large group of the voting set is unrepresented and disenfranchised. Especially when you are encouraging people to vote for the socialists.

If I do recall, we had the second largest percentage. We would have had first, but we lost that by one vote.

It seems our ranks are nearly completely depleted. Alien Born, Wegason, Amazon Desert, Farminia, and others I can't think of are gone, and you joined the Reason Party.

I think I am the only remaining delegate of the group.

Neo, I resent your attempts to create a two party system, here. There is no better way to ensure that a large group of the voting set is unrepresented and disenfranchised. Especially when you are encouraging people to vote for the socialists.
You're right, that was far too partisan and uncalled for. That message is gone. I was taking this too seriously again. I also let the politician in me out, which I was saving for Youth Legislature.



It seems our ranks are nearly completely depleted. Alien Born, Wegason, Amazon Desert, Farminia, and others I can't think of are gone, and you joined the Reason Party.

I think I am the only remaining delegate of the group.
Farminia left? I know the rest did, but I didn't know s/he did. I support the Reason Party, but technically I belong to no party. I'm sorry I'm sorry I kind of left you alone.

http://www.geocities.com/halfduplex2001/NSCONS1.gif
We still have plenty of cookies!!!!

http://www.geocities.com/halfduplex2001/NSCONS1.gif
We still have plenty of cookies!!!!
What program did you use to make that?

Farminia left? I know the rest did, but I didn't know s/he did. I support the Reason Party, but technically I belong to no party. I'm sorry I'm sorry I kind of left you alone.

I haven't seen Farminia in a while.

But I don't mind being alone. This party represents my vision now.

surely cookies are not free for the conservative party.

The NSCP might have cookies but I have riches. Lots and lots of glorious golden riches.

The NSCL might have cookies but I have riches. Lots and lots of glorious golden riches.
Freudian slip?

What program did you use to make that?

Like it? It's called AAA Logo. Free download... fully functional with limited templates. A nice, fast custom logo creator.

Like it? It's called AAA Logo. Free download... fully functional with limited templates. A nice, fast custom logo creator.
That's actually a good idea, because I don't have photoshop.

Freudian slip?
Nah, the keys are like right next to each other. I've made that mistake in IRC a few times too.

surely cookies are not free for the conservative party.
True. The cost is built in to the advertising budget. It's a capitalist thing. ;)

http://www.geocities.com/halfduplex2001/NSCONS1.gif

Nah, the keys are like right next to each other. I've made that mistake in IRC a few times too.
Ahw, and with this I put in my final ad for tonight.

Vote for Freedom, Vote for Your Conscience, Vote for Liberty!

http://img115.imageshack.us/img115/3779/ab5va.gif

*bump

--Government shall be restricted to Courts, Military, and Police. Anything else can and should be handled by society itself. Basic guidelines will be enacted to define 'Free Trade' and the concept will be enforced as such.


Wow. Just Wow.

Lets just get rid of our humanity altogether in the name of cold hearted rationality!

I simply cant wait for the mcdonaldization of society.

Slave labour? YAY. Its efficient and reasonable after all.
I am glad to see that there are at least 81 "reasonable" and completely inhumane people on NS.

maybe the reason party should change its name to the "dog eats dog society." Protecting private property is always the most reasonable even if it means millions of people will be starving. It will be great having robot like people taking control of the society because robots are the most rational and resaonable. None of that human compassion stuff only women care about, fuck that!

maybe the reason party should change its name to the "dog eats dog society." Protecting private property is always the most reasonable even if it means millions of people will be starving. It will be great having robot like people taking control of the society because robots are the most rational and resaonable. None of that human compassion stuff only women care about, fuck that!
Are you done?

Is it reasonable for me to be done? I would say no. I am absolutely horrified and disgusted that the party that gets the most votes is the "reason" party. Please tell me that not all men think this way? please? Is the human race really that hopeless?

Except that the problem with making compassion into a public policy is that it assumes or forces a certain value or a set of values on the population. Compassion and 'human interest' if you will, is an emotionalist appeal, the basis for which varies drastically from person to person. You can't just parade around throwing laws out every ten minutes because they seem to meet 'compassionate' or 'society oriented' goals.

I'm not telling you to 'get rid of' your humanity, I'm just asking that you keep it out of my pocketpook.

hah. when did emotional becomes a bad word? I rather live in a *humane* society rather than one that treats another person as a human resource that has to be used in a *rational* way. And you are also assuming that the economy is seperate from the society and that the private is seperated from the public.

To assume that you can seperate the "rational" from the "emotional" is the denying of reality. The very idea of whats "resonable" and whats not is constructed under a social context, I am sorry to tell you that. To not consider the humanity that binds us all as individuals is a cop out. The idea that rationality is the only way in decideing public policy IS another form of imposing your moral value on me. So saying that you are "reasonable" is a poor excuse of justifying your own idealogy that you wants to impose on the rest of us. So please dont imprison me with your "rationality", i rather be a human being and treat others as as humans as well.

If I were British, I'd have voted for their Imperialist Party. However, as I'm not, NS Conservative Party all the way.

If I were British, I'd have voted for their Imperialist Party. However, as I'm not, NS Conservative Party all the way.


dont worry, hatred and fear are still the definning characters of both parties.

hah. when did emotional becomes a bad word? I rather live in a *humane* society rather than one that treats another person as a human resource that has to be used in a *rational* way.
Tell me, how do we determine the facts of reality? Reason. If you accept materialist Metaphysics, what is morality? Part of reality, i.e., a fact. If emotion and/or whims are not valid means of discerning the nature of reality, then they can't possibly be a universal barometer for morality, which is something philosophers have been trying to find for.... well, some time. If they can't be a universal measure of morality, then laws [which require axiomatic principles to function correctly] must be based upon reason rather than emotion.

Many people mistake this [as you have] as an "anti-emotion" viewpoint, but it's not. I don't cast any aspersions on eating, breathing, drinking, or fucking by denying they are means of cognition. The same thing applies to feeling. The problems arise with "feelings" when a group of people detatches to concept of emotion from the individual, and place it on the rest of us. Essentially, that's what just about any tax funded subsidy or handout boils down to--"Give these people money or else they'll starve/fall ill/steal/etc."

And you are also assuming that the economy is seperate from the society and that the private is seperated from the public.
I am, and they are.

To assume that you can seperate the "rational" from the "emotional" is the denying of reality.
Don't be ridiculous. One does not measure things [physically or intellectually] by emotions, and emotions, conversely, sometimes do not require any reasonable or logical impetus. The two terms are perfectly valid for seperation and discussing their differences is completely justified in any empistemological context.

The very idea of whats "resonable" and whats not is constructed under a social context, I am sorry to tell you that.
Nonsense. Reality dictates the facts, not large groups of people. Reason is not the whim of an armed mob, as conventional morality has apparently tricked you into thinking.

To not consider the humanity that binds us all as individuals is a cop out.
Society is a collection of individuals. Society cannot exist without individuals, but individuals can [and a few unlucky ones probably have] exist without society. Very few things bind us except the fact that we're individuals.

The idea that rationality is the only way in decideing public policy IS another form of imposing your moral value on me.
And what is it, exactly, I'm preventing you from doing?

Tell me, how do we determine the facts of reality? Reason. If you accept materialist Metaphysics, what is morality? Part of reality, i.e., a fact. If emotion and/or whims are not valid means of discerning the nature of reality, then they can't possibly be a universal barometer for morality, which is something philosophers have been trying to find for.... well, some time. If they can't be a universal measure of morality, then laws [which require axiomatic principles to function correctly] must be based upon reason rather than emotion.

I dont know what the hell you are talking about, you use terminologies that are way too specific and loaded. There are many realities in this world that are experiened by different individuals.Whats reasonable for one person may be different for another. Emotion is consciousness, and the ability to reason comes from our consciousness. I dont believe that you can seperate rationality from the emotional, thats like asking a person to seperate the body from the mind. Reason is just another way for the a well off person to justfy captialism. And all other social factors be damned, whats reasonable SHALL be whats reasonable for the privileged class of people. In this process, we lose sight of doing what will actually benefit people and help out their personal growth. Is it resonable to measure our quality of life by the size of our economy?
There is no one single reality , so there is no possible way to use reason to discern reality.

When you try to sell the idea of reason, you are forcing us to treat each other as a product , a commodity. We relate to each other as things that we use, instead of as infinite beings.

I dont know what the hell you are talking about, you use terminology that is way too specific and loaded. There are many realities in this world that are experiened by different individuals.Whats reasonable for one person may be different for another. Emotion is consciousness, and the ability to reason comes from our consciousness. I dont believe that you can seperate rationality from emotional, thats like asking a person to seperate the body from the mind.

There is only one reality. Simply because someone has a difference in perception does not mean one is experiencing a completely different reality. Emotions are not consciousness, they are our reactions to reality, not our means of percieving them.

You want to deny reason, fine. Just don't force me to deny mine, or anyone else's, for that matter. One fine day your going to grow up and experiance the real world (I'd say after high school in your case) and you are going to discover that people are so different from individual to individual that enforcing any kind of universal morality on them is not only a waste of time but also just plain wrong.

As for your "loaded terminology remark." Welcome to the big leagues. If you do not have the mental fortitude to follow what's being said, be honest enough to admit rather then saying there's something wrong with Melkor's choice of words. After all, you don't see anyone here rejecting your argument simply because your terminology is too "vague" and "unsubstantial," now do you?

I dont know what the hell you are talking about, you use terminology that is way too specific and loaded.
A thousand pardons, but I have a tendancy to speak very specifically when it comes to epistemology, an [apparently] rarely discussed facet of philosophy, at least on this forum.

There are many realities in this world that are experiened by different individuals.
You couldn't be more wrong. There's one reality, and a shit ton of consciousnesses. This means, in effect, one picture and about 6 billion people with a thousand different words for it. In a Metaphysical sense, there is no justification and no consistency to the claim that we're all experiencing fundamentally "different" realities.

Whats reasonable for one person may be different for another.
Precisely, which is why a free society is one that allows one person or a voluntarily formed group of people to pursue their specific values with the full command of their resources onhand to do it.

Emotion is consciousness, and the ability to reason comes from our consciousness.
Emotion is not consciousness. Consciousness it the umbrella under which both reason and emotion sit.

I dont believe that you can seperate rationality from emotional, thats like asking a person to seperate the body from the mind.
Except that emotional impulses are a part of the mind every bit as much as reason is. Its more like trying to seperate the mind from the mind, if you think about it. For that reason, this dichotomy is baloney.

There is no one single reality , so there is no possible way to use reason to discern reality.
Saying we all exist in different realities is preposterous, and this has never been [and can never be] proven by any manner of consistent metaphysics. Certain people may not want to accept things as reality, but that doesn't mean it's not there.

Reason is just another way for the a well off person to justfy captialism.
No, it's the way. And I'm hardly "well off." I lived in downtown Akron for a year at $7200 and I'm making even less [though I have a head over my roof] now.

And all other social factors be damned, whats reasonable SHALL be whats reasonable for the privileged class of people.
Or for anyone else.

In this process, we lose sight of doing what will actually benefit people and help out their personal growth. Is it resonable to measure our quality of life by the size of our economy?
Well... yeah! I mean, what happens when you have a lot of stuff? People get a lot of stuff. This country, as a result of Capitalism, has turned obesity into a larger problem for our poor than malnourishment will ever be again, unless the Commies get their revolution. The life expectancy, and quality of living, not to mention aggregate net income have always and will always continue to climb in a proper capitalist society. The degree of its success, along with the degree of failure in the Left, is incriment on its adhereance to principle.

When you try to sell the idea of reason, you are forcing us to treat each other as a product , a commodity. We relate to each other as things that we use, instead of as infinite beings.
And I still have not seen how you demonstrate that my platform in any way amounts to the use of force against an individual's body or mind? You can form a commune, for all I care. Just don't subsidize it.

Vote for the Revolutionary Trotskyist Party...and laugh the laugh of the intellectual...

Believe me, malnourishment is a problems that poor people have to face everyday.

The problem with "reason" is that you put a money value on a person and you think that economic growth is the same as personal growth. In terms of life expectancy? its the quality, not the quantity.

Reason is not reasonable because it doesnt take into account of discriminaton and social backgrounds and so many other variables that affect the life of an individual. Its also a "white man" idealogy that see people as seperate entity instead of a member of a whole.

case in point, why would it be fair for the "society to sort itself out" when a transsexual is being denied the right to employment. The reason party is of course very concerned with private properties, but what about people who dont have anything because they are being discriminated against? How will this be sorted out? Should those trasngender go kill themselves , is that part of letting "socety sorting itself out" ? I mean, its reasonable isnt it? If you can contribute to the society *or the society wont take your contribution*, than you might as well be dead.

natural selection, baby!

vote for the REASON party, where you can drop dead if you are not liked by the mainstream society.

isnt it fucking great?

...You should have the right to do with this property what you wish as long as you don’t infringe on another person's right to use their property as they wish...
Says who?

...Since we assume that people have the right to their own body, we assume that they have a right to labor, which is an economic value....
Says who?

Sorry to be so difficult, but I'd like to hear the fundamental, objective, 100% correct reason for why your house is yours, and my house is mine.
:D

All right, I'm growing a little tired of DSP attacks against the UDCP, so...

The DSP accuse us of splitting the left vote. The reason we're seperate parties is because we have different policies! And the UDCP's policies, I might add, are often far more clearly established than those of the DSP. Also, the DSP was established after the UDCP. If anyone's splitting the left vote, it's the DSP.

Now... Are you a left-wing voter? Not sure whom to vote for? Not sure which party best represents the left?

The UDCP is the oldest, and, more importantly, best organised and most active party of the left. We have more members than the DSP and the RTP combined. We've got an active forum, in which all members are entitled and encouraged to help us shape the party's policies. We are the most organised, thorough, efficient party of the left.

Our policies are clear, and they come from all our members. The UDCP is a democratic party, in which all members take part in the decision-making, and in deciding what our MPs will vote in Parliament. In that sense, too, we are the most organised. The DSP, sadly, lacks clearly defined policies in a number of areas. The previous Parliament had a vote regarding the death penalty. Some DSP MPs voted against the death penalty (as did the UDCP),while some voted in favour! If you vote DSP, you have no way of knowing what you're actually voting for.

Worse, the DSP's stand on socialism and capitalism has never been clearly defined, and wavers throughout successive debates. To the point that there have been suggestions, from the right, of a coalition between the right and the DSP! The UDCP's policies, by contrast, are perfectly clear.

Not only are the UDCP's policies clear, but we are more active in Parliament. The UDCP has put forth more proposals in Parliament than the DSP has, and UDCP members have, unlike MPs of other left-wing parties, consistently taken part in votes in Parliament. A vote for the UDCP is the only way to ensure a genuine, active left-wing presence in Parliament, and left-wing MPs who will vote in issues and actively fight to translate their manifesto into law. A manifesto only becomes meaningful if a party acts upon it once in Parliament, and records show the UDCP has been the most active party of the left in this regard.

If you want the left to be absent from Parliament, vote DSP.

But if you would like a strong, active, genuine left-wing force in Parliament, committed to defending and advocating your beliefs and ideals, there is no more effective way to do that than to vote UDCP!

Except that the problem with making compassion into a public policy is that it assumes or forces a certain value or a set of values on the population. Compassion and 'human interest' if you will, is an emotionalist appeal, the basis for which varies drastically from person to person. You can't just parade around throwing laws out every ten minutes because they seem to meet 'compassionate' or 'society oriented' goals.


But society is and always has been grounded on the principle of common good, and protecting those in need. Whether you view it as compassion or reason, it's the essence behind most law-making.

You advocate a police force to prevent physical violence, but not social laws to prevent people from starving. Where's the difference? Don't tell me the starving could just get jobs, because you know it's not always that easy.

Slave labour? YAY. Its efficient and reasonable after all.
I am glad to see that there are at least 81 "reasonable" and completely inhumane people on NS.

The way I look at it is 81.01% didnt vote Reason...look on the bright side.

VOTE ESP
It doesn't make sense! What more could you want?

case in point, why would it be fair for the "society to sort itself out" when a transsexual is being denied the right to employment. The reason party is of course very concerned with private properties, but what about people who dont have anything because they are being discriminated against? How will this be sorted out? Should those trasngender go kill themselves , is that part of letting "socety sorting itself out" ? I mean, its reasonable isnt it? If you can contribute to the society *or the society wont take your contribution*, than you might as well be dead.

natural selection, baby!

vote for the REASON party, where you can drop dead if you are not liked by the mainstream society.

isnt it fucking great?

For one thing, that's a slippery slope argument and is, as one might expect, ultimately an emotionalist appeal. This is the find of shit I'm talking about: "Transgendered people might not get jobs in a free society so lets spend your tax dollars making sure they do" is not an edict worth enforcing or even listening to, really. My wallet shouldn't suffer because other people might happen to be ignorant or racist/sexist or what-have-you.

Furthermore, your assertation that one can "drop dead if you are not liked by the mainstream society" is complete bunk: I place no premium on things that are "liked by mainstream society" and I don't condemn everything that isn't accepted by them. If anything, the Leftist parties are far more interested in what's acceptable to 'mainstream society' than I will ever be. I'm trying to protect people from the dangerous, mindless horde that is 'mainstream society,' I'm not trying to subject anything and everything to its whim. Methinks someone doesn't have any idea what she's talking about.

But society is and always has been grounded on the principle of common good, and protecting those in need. Whether you view it as compassion or reason, it's the essence behind most law-making.
And this impresses me how? Saying Society should be grounded in the principle of common good and 'protecting those in need' because it "always has been" is something I'd expect to hear from a conservative, not a "progressive" type left-winger such as yourself. The fact that society has had certain tendancies in the past does nothing to account for the fact that we might have had our heads up our asses back then too.

You advocate a police force to prevent physical violence, but not social laws to prevent people from starving. Where's the difference? Don't tell me the starving could just get jobs, because you know it's not always that easy.
The difference is that starving and falling ill are not metaphysical emergencies, rather they are risks attendant to existing in the first place. The right to life doesn't cary with it some etheral promise of success, at least not from the government. You might get it from your family if you're lucky, but the differences there are.... prominent.

Having a police force makes sense because we need a mechanism by which to ensure that force is not enacted upon other citizens. Social laws to "prevent people from starving" don't make sense because they a) assume that everyone is willing to spend their money to acheive this end--and forces them to, and b) people aren't starving in this country anyway, thanks mostly to the low food prices brought to us by the free market.

VOTE ESP. You can starve for all we care
No.... just kidding.... we're the only real compassionate party...

And this impresses me how? Saying Society should be grounded in the principle of common good and 'protecting those in need' because it "always has been" is something I'd expect to hear from a conservative, not a "progressive" type left-winger such as yourself. The fact that society has had certain tendancies in the past does nothing to account for the fact that we might have had our heads up our asses back then too.

The principles of law have always been to the interests of what the ruling class percieves to be the common good. However, I agree that the past should have no effect present or future society.


The difference is that starving and falling ill are not metaphysical emergencies, rather they are risks attendant to existing in the first place. The right to life doesn't cary with it some etheral promise of success, at least not from the government. You might get it from your family if you're lucky, but the differences there are.... prominent.

Sorry, mate, success in life should not depend on whether you're lucky enough to have a rich dad who pops his clogs a little early, or a big divorce settlement. If it is, why don't we just have an absolute monarch and an aristocracy to rule for us little plebs?, since that is the perfect society where social status and wealth depend on luck, and there is little gurantee of success - or food, water, a job for that matter.

And as for so-called "risks attendant to existing in the first place" - That is a pathetic excuse for letting people starve. Getting shot in the head could, by your logic, be a 'risk attendant to existing in the first place' since it is out of your control. Is that, therefore, acceptable? Starving is, and falling ill often, preventable by reducing poverty. Instead of a few fat cats and many poor plebs, which is what your society would descend into, we could have all in-betweenies, which is far healthier for society.

It's quite scary that people have that 19th century attitude towards society in the 21st.

Having a police force makes sense because we need a mechanism by which to ensure that force is not enacted upon other citizens. Social laws to "prevent people from starving" don't make sense because they a) assume that everyone is willing to spend their money to acheive this end--and forces them to, and b) people aren't starving in this country anyway, thanks mostly to the low food prices brought to us by the free market.

Yes a police force is needed to enforce the law, we at last have some common ground ;)

Social laws do make sense - whether people like paying for it or not. Or should I say because YOU don't want to get out your pocket book. Selfishness should not be the driving force behind governent - you and other ultracapitalists may be quite happy to hoard whatever wealth you can find while kids grow up rough on the street and people starve to death, but we're not all like that. So don't give any " people aren't willing to pay" crap. Nobody likes tax, but we have to put up with it because it does more good than harm.

I assume that this utopia you're mentioing is the good ol' US of A. Perhaps you're not starving. Godd for you. Perhaps you don't see people with no belongings on the streets in inner cities, or the people who couldn't afford to leave new Orleans (no car)

... it was acknowledged that tens of thousands of the poorest residents would not be able to leave the city in advance.

No official plan was ever put in place for them.

Or perhaps
Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4210648.stm)

Seems like a utopia too me. No poor at all. The "Free Market" is such a success.

I'm sorry in advnace to have to drag information from Hurricane Katrina into this. It doesn't seem right, but it's the first source I could think of.

Sorry, mate, success in life should not depend on whether you're lucky enough to have a rich dad who pops his clogs a little early, or a big divorce settlement. If it is, why don't we just have an absolute monarch and an aristocracy to rule for us little plebs?, since that is the perfect society where social status and wealth depend on luck, and there is little gurantee of success - or food, water, a job for that matter.

Strawman, nowhere is it advocated that "luck" be the sole deciding factor, because it is only your conception that wealth can only be accumulated through having a "rich dad" or a "big divorce settlement."


And as for so-called "risks attendant to existing in the first place" - That is a pathetic excuse for letting people starve. Getting shot in the head could, by your logic, be a 'risk attendant to existing in the first place' since it is out of your control. Is that, therefore, acceptable? Starving is, and falling ill often, preventable by reducing poverty. Instead of a few fat cats and many poor plebs, which is what your society would descend into, we could have all in-betweenies, which is far healthier for society.

Again with the "letting people starve," as if other people's dietary needs are provided by ME and MY money. Why is it that I can support myself and get food? I don't have a rich dad. I don't have taxpayer money putting food on my table. So tell me, why? And furthermore why should I support those who supposedly are unable to?


Social laws do make sense - whether people like paying for it or not. Or should I say because YOU don't want to get out your pocket book. Selfishness should not be the driving force behind governent - you and other ultracapitalists may be quite happy to hoard whatever wealth you can find while kids grow up rough on the street and people starve to death, but we're not all like that.

Nonsense. Hoarding is pretty anticapitalistic.

Selfishness IS the driving force behind most behavior, I'm afraid to tell you. Whether it "should" or not is a question for philosophers.


I assume that this utopia you're mentioing is the good ol' US of A. Perhaps you're not starving. Godd for you. Perhaps you don't see people with no belongings on the streets in inner cities, or the people who couldn't afford to leave new Orleans (no car)

I don't see many people starving, no. Maybe you could provide some important statistics about how many people starve to death in the USA?



Seems like a utopia too me. No poor at all. The "Free Market" is such a success.

The free market doesn't guarantee "no poor at all." Nor even "utopia." You must have it confused with Communism or many of the socialist policies of other parties on this forum.

Says who?


Says who?

Sorry to be so difficult, but I'd like to hear the fundamental, objective, 100% correct reason for why your house is yours, and my house is mine.
:D

I guess you can use the philosophy of Kant and the obligations given by the categorical imperative. By using the first two formulations:

1. "Act as if the maxim of thy action were to become by thy will a universal law of nature."

2. "Act that you use humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end, never merely as a means."

We can say that, were we to respect our own labor, and to survive we must, we must respect the labor of others to achieve universality. If we were to not respect the labor of others, in turn using it for the betterment of ourselves or society, we would be treating them as a means, as opposed to treating them as an end.

Even though I consider that to be an objective moral basis for labor rights, I certainly know that there will be people who disagree with me. But at least I agree with Kant and not some idiot on the internet.

Strawman, nowhere is it advocated that "luck" be the sole deciding factor, because it is only your conception that wealth can only be accumulated through having a "rich dad" or a "big divorce settlement."

"You might get it [help] from your family if you're lucky" - That's a quote. And luck can be the solde deciding factor. Contrary to popular opinion, poor people aren't all sitting doing nothing, hoping someone might give them a quid or two. We don't all get high-paid salaries from nowhere. When you're poor, unable to get a good job, stuck in a small house with not enough food on the table, luck is perhaps the primary deciding factor.

Again with the "letting people starve," as if other people's dietary needs are provided by ME and MY money. Why is it that I can support myself and get food? I don't have a rich dad. I don't have taxpayer money putting food on my table. So tell me, why? And furthermore why should I support those who supposedly are unable to?

Selfish. Totally selfish. You talk about responsibility to oneself - why not have some responsibility towards your country and society?


Nonsense. Hoarding is pretty anticapitalistic.

Plenty of capitalists do it.

Selfishness IS the driving force behind most behavior, I'm afraid to tell you. Whether it "should" or not is a question for philosophers.

Why does that immedatly make it right? If going round punching someone in the face was normal behavior, would that be right? The government is in a position to prevent selfishness, which is not the best thing for the most people.

I don't see many people starving, no. Maybe you could provide some important statistics about how many people starve to death in the USA?

Let me quote:


David Teather in New York
Friday August 27, 2004
The Guardian

The number of Americans living in poverty grew for the third successive year during 2003, swelling to almost 36 million people.

The figures will be unwelcome news for President George Bush, struggling to convince voters ahead of November elections that he has the economy back on track.

According to the annual Census Bureau report, another 1.3 million Americans slid into poverty during the year, taking the total to 35.9 million, around 12.5% of the population. That was up from 34.5 million (12.1%) in 2002.

The free market doesn't guarantee "no poor at all." Nor even "utopia." You must have it confused with Communism or many of the socialist policies of other parties on this forum.

Sorry. Obviously my mistake to cloud the two...

Just an observation. I do find it a tad interesting that NS Conservative Party is doing so well given that there has really only been one vocal voice in support of this party. I also find it a little hard to believe given the results of the last election. Because I can't prove anything I won't make any accusations, however perhaps an idea for the next elections, you should show who voted for who publicly. Will that make some not vote? Perhaps, but at least there will be no suspicion of puppet voting either. Just a thought.

Fed up with the way society's headed? Then Vote ESP and help us destroy it!

Vote ESP.
Twice voted "Most edible party of the year" by Readers Digest

Just an observation. I do find it a tad interesting that NS Conservative Party is doing so well given that there has really only been one vocal voice in support of this party. I also find it a little hard to believe given the results of the last election. Because I can't prove anything I won't make any accusations, however perhaps an idea for the next elections, you should show who voted for who publicly. Will that make some not vote? Perhaps, but at least there will be no suspicion of puppet voting either. Just a thought.

There certainatly has been puppet voting as far as i've been told. And you're right, it should be public, and I too do not want to point fingers either. I keep my hands in my pockets ;)

"You might get it [help] from your family if you're lucky" - That's a quote. And luck can be the solde deciding factor. Contrary to popular opinion, poor people aren't all sitting doing nothing, hoping someone might give them a quid or two. We don't all get high-paid salaries from nowhere. When you're poor, unable to get a good job, stuck in a small house with not enough food on the table, luck is perhaps the primary deciding factor.


Yeah, but you're trying to make it sound like help from one's family, or luck, is the only means of material success, and that everyone else just becomes a "plebe." And that definitely is not true.


Selfish. Totally selfish. You talk about responsibility to oneself - why not have some responsibility towards your country and society?

Yeah, I'm selfish. You've convicted me there. But I don't see selfishness as a bad thing, so the incrimination has no effect on me!

I have a responsibility to myself, not to others. And why should I be the one to support others when others (meaning the 'plebes' you talk of) don't see any responsibility to support me? And paying welfare =/= supporting your country. In my view its rather the opposite, incouraging people that its OK if you can't get a job, someone else will support you, so don't bother.


Plenty of capitalists do it.

And plenty of capitalists are idiots.


Why does that immedatly make it right? If going round punching someone in the face was normal behavior, would that be right? The government is in a position to prevent selfishness, which is not the best thing for the most people.

But going around punching people in the face ISNT normal behavior. Being selfish is. Look alll throughout the animal world for that. If animals (humans) were not selfish, we'd be dead.

And I don't see where you think that "selfishness... is not the best thing for the most people." That doesnt make sense to me.

Let me quote:

Ah yes, but "below the poverty line" does not mean "starving to death," does it?

Ah yes, but "below the poverty line" does not mean "starving to death," does it?
DEFINITION: Poverty Line - the level below which one cannot afford to purchase all the resources required to live.

VOTE ESP - OUR DEFINITIONS MAY BE AWRY, BUT WE CAN SPOON DANCE

DEFINITION: Poverty Line - the level below which one cannot afford to purchase all the resources required to live.


Oho, the emphatically substandard party now wishes to engage in politics? A bit late for me to take you seriously.

Now let's complete the wiki quote.

The poverty line is the level of income below which one cannot afford to purchase all the resources one requires to live. People who have an income below the poverty line have no discretionary disposable income, by definition.

And what is disposable income?

Disposable income is the amount of an individual's total income left after taxes, plus any transfer payments (grants) received from the government or elsewhere.

Therefore, less taxes = less people below the poverty line.

And let me point out that no one so far has given actual numbers as to the people STARVING TO DEATH that is apparently such a wide epidemic in this country. Which is what we were talking about, not the "poverty line" which is fairly arbitrarily set (see wikipedia for more).


VOTE ESP - OUR DEFINITIONS MAY BE AWRY, BUT WE CAN PRETEND TO BE AMUSING

Sure.

Just an observation. I do find it a tad interesting that NS Conservative Party is doing so well given that there has really only been one vocal voice in support of this party. I also find it a little hard to believe given the results of the last election. Because I can't prove anything I won't make any accusations, however perhaps an idea for the next elections, you should show who voted for who publicly. Will that make some not vote? Perhaps, but at least there will be no suspicion of puppet voting either. Just a thought.

All inanimate figurines and childrens playthings aiming to provide entertainment to the masses should have the right to vote!

The ESP. Say our name really fast and see what happens!

There certainatly has been puppet voting as far as i've been told. And you're right, it should be public, and I too do not want to point fingers either. I keep my hands in my pockets ;)

The NS Conservative Party does not support puppet voting, other parties may, but thats not our way.

I enjoy dancing the lambada in my underwear atop kitchen work surfaces.

I think you just joined the revolution Santa Barbara

The ESP. Twist what we say and we'll twist your concepts of reality

The NS Conservative Party does not support puppet voting, other parties may, but thats not our way.

On a serious note I don't think it's very fair that people keep trying to suggest that the success of the conservatives is down to puppet-voting. It sounds like the mating call of sore-losers to me....

*yeah whatever*
Dude, I was just saying what 'Poverty line' meant. You were making out that being below the poverty line meant you weren't having trouble providing yourself sustenance. 'Tis no biggie, I was just poking stuff to see what happened.

VOTE WHATEVER PARTY SANTA BARBARA IS PART OF - THEY DEFINITELY AREN'T REACTIONARY OR REALLY NASTY

Yeah, but you're trying to make it sound like help from one's family, or luck, is the only means of material success, and that everyone else just becomes a "plebe." And that definitely is not true.

If there's no help from any welfare state, what does happen if you, say, break a leg, and can't afford health insurance? Either family help, or lucky charity, gets you to hospital.

I've never said that noone can't get a job and have money without state help, but help should be made available to those who need it. And after, when they don't need it, they cough up too.

Yeah, I'm selfish. You've convicted me there. But I don't see selfishness as a bad thing, so the incrimination has no effect on me!

Then I hope you never need help, since you're now officially a Lost Cause ;) (Said in the nicest possible way)

I have a responsibility to myself, not to others. And why should I be the one to support others when others (meaning the 'plebes' you talk of) don't see any responsibility to support me? And paying welfare =/= supporting your country. In my view its rather the opposite, encouraging people that its OK if you can't get a job, someone else will support you, so don't bother.

The idea behind welfare isn't 'the rich pay for poor people to do whatnot all.' It's primarily a safety net for those who need it, and to lift them out of poverty. And once they're out of poverty, they pay up too. It's not 'you' paying for 'him'. All pay who can. All receive who need it, and then pay after.

And plenty of capitalists are idiots.
As are plenty of other ideology-ists, no doubt.

But going around punching people in the face ISNT normal behavior. Being selfish is. Look alll throughout the animal world for that. If animals (humans) were not selfish, we'd be dead.

When foraging in the wild, perhaps. But humanity has moved on since then. The world is no longer such a harsh place. Or should I say, potentially not such a harsh place. We no longer need selfishness, in my opinion. Sure, a five year old might hide sweets from her brother, or something like that, but we no longer need it to survive.

And I don't see where you think that "selfishness... is not the best thing for the most people." That doesnt make sense to me.

Explanation: Selfishness won't make the most people happy, because there are always 'winners' and more 'losers'. Under a selfish system.

Ah yes, but "below the poverty line" does not mean "starving to death," does it?

DEFINITION: Poverty Line - the level below which one cannot afford to purchase all the resources required to live.

The NS Conservative Party does not support puppet voting, other parties may, but thats not our way.

Honestly, I didn't accuse anyone, including the conservatives, of puppet voting. I apologize wholeheartedly of it came over that way, it really wasn't meant to.

Dude, I was just saying what 'Poverty line' meant.

That wasn't very much in question...

You were making out that being below the poverty line meant you weren't having trouble providing yourself sustenance.

Mostly I was saying that below poverty line does not mean STARVING TO DEATH as some folks would have us believe.


VOTE WHATEVER PARTY SANTA BARBARA IS PART OF - THEY DEFINITELY AREN'T REACTIONARY OR REALLY NASTY

My nastiness has nothing to do with what party I'm part of here. It's actually a trend all of my own!

But yeah... vote REASON party!

"Disposable income is the amount of an individual's total income left after taxes, plus any transfer payments (grants) received from the government or elsewhere."


"Therefore, less taxes = less people below the poverty line."

As far as I know, people under the poverty line, at least in the UK don't pay income tax.

Honestly, I didn't accuse anyone, including the conservatives, of puppet voting. I apologize wholeheartedly of it came over that way, it really wasn't meant to.

I wasn't saying it was you, but leaders of other leading parties, naming no names, have accused us of this over the past day or two.

I wasn't saying it was you, but leaders of other leading parties, naming no names, have accused us of this over the past day or two.

Ta, mate. Good luck!

"Disposable income is the amount of an individual's total income left after taxes, plus any transfer payments (grants) received from the government or elsewhere."


"Therefore, less taxes = less people below the poverty line."

As far as I know, people under the poverty line, at least in the UK don't pay income tax.
In the UK, the poverty line is estimated at having earnings of around £13000/year or less. Income tax starts at £10000 (I think, I've never managed to earn that much in a year...)
Or, in short, you're wrong.
Be silly! VOTE ESP!

NS Conservative Party - You know you want us!

On a serious note I don't think it's very fair that people keep trying to suggest that the success of the conservatives is down to puppet-voting. It sounds like the mating call of sore-losers to me....

Not at all, in fact I have nothing to do with any of the parties up for election. I'm just an ex-mod who can see the writing on the wall.

"Disposable income is the amount of an individual's total income left after taxes, plus any transfer payments (grants) received from the government or elsewhere."


"Therefore, less taxes = less people below the poverty line."

As far as I know, people under the poverty line, at least in the UK don't pay income tax.
True, but in the UK, income tax is relatively low compared with, say, the rest of Europe. As a nation, I think the UK pays more in indirect taxation (as %GDP) than direct. Strangely, this was what my A-level economics synoptic paper was about. Anyway, Santa Barbara's "reducing taxes to reduce people below poverty line" could work in the short run, as long as taxes reduced were indirect taxes. This might even benefit the poorer, as indirect taxes often have a regressive nature i.e. impact more on the poor than the rich in terms of % disposable income. However, the long run effects could include a fall in living standards (if free healthcare is revoked) and more people below the poverty line as all benefits/subsidies drop significantly. It'd certainly be aiming for a very free market approach to economics, although you'd have to be an orthodox idiot to believe that market systems are perfect.

VOTE ESP - WE CAN BE SERIOUS IF IT SEEMS SILLY ENOUGH

If there's no help from any welfare state, what does happen if you, say, break a leg, and can't afford health insurance? Either family help, or lucky charity, gets you to hospital.

Why is charity "lucky," but government taxes funding the 'needy' isn't? Trust me, you need luck even with the so-called welfare state.

I've never said that noone can't get a job and have money without state help, but help should be made available to those who need it. And after, when they don't need it, they cough up too.

But you would have me believe just about everyone needs help from the government, except for the minority capitalist oppressor. At least thats the impression I'm getting from you. Is that far off?

Then I hope you never need help, since you're now officially a Lost Cause ;) (Said in the nicest possible way)

When help is given it is still in self interest. Unless you're Jesus, altruism is in fact selfish interest. For example, satisfying one's needs to project an image of altruism. Or getting more votes in an election. Or increasing the supposed returns from Karma.

Help i've gotten. Help from government? No.

And a lot of poor people can say the same. Even though our supposedly 'welfare' state altruistically desires to take care of them.


The idea behind welfare isn't 'the rich pay for poor people to do whatnot all.' It's primarily a safety net for those who need it, and to lift them out of poverty. And once they're out of poverty, they pay up too. It's not 'you' paying for 'him'. All pay who can.

I'm aware of the concept, but I don't buy it. And until AND unless someone is 'lifted out of poverty' by government, it IS me paying for them. And if they never 'can?' Oh it's just me paying for them, all the time. Whether I want to or not.

When foraging in the wild, perhaps. But humanity has moved on since then. The world is no longer such a harsh place. Or should I say, potentially not such a harsh place

Haha. This seems rather naive in my opinion. When foraging in the wild, humans had better work weeks, less stress, no poverty, no large scale warfare, no police, no government. Now with all this moving on, we've had dictators who've killed tens of millions of people apiece, governments that routinely extract through force from their citizens, wars, overcrowding, pollution, and the poverty line.

We no longer need selfishness, in my opinion. Sure, a five year old might hide sweets from her brother, or something like that, but we no longer need it to survive.

Okay, well you go on thinking that, but look carefully next time you act and see if there is any way to interpret what you do as being selfish. If you cannot see that, then you my friend are more likely the Lost Cause. ;)

Explanation: Selfishness won't make the most people happy, because there are always 'winners' and more 'losers'. Under a selfish system.

And every system is selfish! Except you are defining anyone who is below the highly arbitrary poverty line as being a "loser" already. Selfishness doesn't make the most people happy, but what does? A Brave New World? Hey, everyone WOULD be happy on that one. Just let the government dope us up and feed us. No freedom, hey, but you would have us believe selfishness is more unjust than lack of freedom anyway, no?

In the UK, the poverty line is estimated at having earnings of around £13000/year or less. Income tax starts at £10000 (I think, I've never managed to earn that much in a year...)
Or, in short, you're wrong.
Be silly! VOTE ESP!

Sorry, I got that wrong (but it's still pretty close *clutches straws*)

Perhaps those under £13000 shouldn't pay tax either. Apparently at £13000 you only pay 15% tax anyway, which is far less than the maximum 40% at higher levels.

Bah! I'm now all of a muddle.

Not at all, in fact I have nothing to do with any of the parties up for election. I'm just an ex-mod who can see the writing on the wall.
Yoiu can see the writing on the wall? Care to eleborate for all of us who aren't all knowing ex-mods just what that writing says?

Yoiu can see the writing on the wall? Care to eleborate for all of us who aren't all knowing ex-mods just what that writing says?

Well when a poll is not made public (so you can see who voted for who) then you can use puppets to vote as many times as you like and no one is the wiser, except for one small problem, when you see an option on the poll go from very low to very high in a very short time period of less that an hour as was the case in this case yesterday, you don't have to actually be a rocket scientist to figure out the rest.

Well when a poll is not made public (so you can see who voted for who) then you can use puppets to vote as many times as you like and no one is the wiser, except for one small problem, when you see an option on the poll go from very low to very high in a very short time period of less that an hour as was the case in this case yesterday, you don't have to actually be a rocket scientist to figure out the rest.
Thats the pettiest, most childish statement you've made in a while! Just because alot of the votes happened in the same hour, and Conservatives are winning, they MUST have cheated? It COULDN'T coincide with something else, such as maybe people getting off work, of when it gets dark outside, or maybe after a show on t.v. that a lot of ceonservatives like.

It COULDN'T BE ANYTHING ELSE? Your sad and pathetic, and you just reminded me of that gigle I had ALL DAY on November 3rd when Bush beat Kerry and all the Liberals needed therepy!

Grow up, youyr losing (again) Quit making excuses, and find out why you lost, and maybe then you could fix it instaed of just accussing the other side of cheating.

Well when a poll is not made public (so you can see who voted for who) then you can use puppets to vote as many times as you like and no one is the wiser, except for one small problem, when you see an option on the poll go from very low to very high in a very short time period of less that an hour as was the case in this case yesterday, you don't have to actually be a rocket scientist to figure out the rest.
In fairness, much of the Conservative vote is coming from outspoken Conservatives who inhabit the game outisde of the forum; it seems like more people are active on the RMB overall than are active here, so it stands to reason that they'd get some votes from people who never post.

That said, I have noticed a few noteworthy jumps; the first one brought the Conservatives within striking distance of the lead going from 11 to 25 or 30 within a half hour or so. Later [from the 50's up till now], when I established another dominant lead, it was gone in minutes. Ever since then, votes for me and votes for the NSCP have been pretty much matched vote for vote. Almost exactly.

GRR! ARRRR!
Do you know what a FLAME is?

In fairness, much of the Conservative vote is coming from outspoken Conservatives who inhabit the game outisde of the forum; it seems like more people are active on the RMB overall than are active here, so it stands to reason that they'd get some votes from people who never post.

That said, I have noticed a few noteworthy jumps; the first one brought the Conservatives within striking distance of the lead going from 11 to 25 or 30 within a half hour or so. Later [from the 50's up till now], when I established another dominant lead, it was gone in minutes. Ever since then, votes for me and votes for the NSCP have been pretty much matched vote for vote. Almost exactly.

Yes, I think it would be unfair to accuse only the Conservatives, as I have noted a few other leaps in other parties too, however they were the most glaring to me, as they took the biggest leaps.

No biggy, I just think for future elections perhaps a public vote would be best. :)

Well, I don't remember conservatives having such a wide majority last time. I agree that a public poll should be made, I mean really whats to stop someone from making a bunch of puppets and using them all to vote? That goes for any and all parties. Last time I suspected the socialist parties not the conservatives, but really, I suspect everyone who isn't me.

And this impresses me how? Saying Society should be grounded in the principle of common good and 'protecting those in need' because it "always has been" is something I'd expect to hear from a conservative, not a "progressive" type left-winger such as yourself. The fact that society has had certain tendancies in the past does nothing to account for the fact that we might have had our heads up our asses back then too.

All right, that's a fair point. I'll concede that I simply agree with the principle of society ensuring basic rights and decent living conditions to all its members.


The difference is that starving and falling ill are not metaphysical emergencies, rather they are risks attendant to existing in the first place. The right to life doesn't cary with it some etheral promise of success, at least not from the government. You might get it from your family if you're lucky, but the differences there are.... prominent.

Having a police force makes sense because we need a mechanism by which to ensure that force is not enacted upon other citizens. Social laws to "prevent people from starving" don't make sense because they a) assume that everyone is willing to spend their money to acheive this end--and forces them to, and b) people aren't starving in this country anyway, thanks mostly to the low food prices brought to us by the free market.

Just as you force people from rich, crime-free areas to spend money for the protection of people in crime-ridden areas. Which is, in my opinion, quite right, and I suggest the same principle should be applied to prevent malnutrition or people suffering from preventable diseases. The consequences of poverty stem just as much from society as violence does. A society may not promise you "success", but it should promise you that you'll have a roof over your head, enough to eat and decent healthcare. At the very least.

And if some don't want to pay taxes to ensure that others won't starve, then yes, they should be made to. Just as they're made to fund the police through taxes even if they benefit from it less than others.

Well, I don't remember conservatives having such a wide majority last time. I agree that a public poll should be made, I mean really whats to stop someone from making a bunch of puppets and using them all to vote? That goes for any and all parties. Last time I suspected the socialist parties not the conservatives, but really, I suspect everyone who isn't me.
And how, just by seeing a bunch of names, would you know puppets were being used? It's a nice idea but not only would a public vote undermine the democratic process of secret ballot, but it wouldnt actually work either.

And how, just by seeing a bunch of names, would you know puppets were being used?

Because mods who spend a great deal of time in General would notice names that are not familiar to them, and they could check to see if they were in fact puppets. Checks and balances ya know. ;)

Do you know what a FLAME is?
Correct me if I'm wrong but a flame is when you post something just for the effect of pissing people off. My post may piss people off, as many posts do, but the intent was to address someone screaming CHEATER without ANY PROOF. Sorry, I just don't like accusations like that. Is cheating possible? YES is there proof? NO It's just as likely that someone cheated FOR the conservatives just to make them look bad. I know one thing, if I were to cheat for a party, I'b be sure to spread the votes out.

Bottom line, theres no call for accusations without proof. It's distatsteful and kindergertenish.

Because mods who spend a great deal of time in General would notice names that are not familiar to them, and they could check to see if they were in fact puppets. Checks and balances ya know. ;)
But it's not a public poll, and your not a mod anymore, how do you see the names?

Bottom line, theres no call for accusations without proof. It's distatsteful and kindergertenish.

Which is why I clearly said in my first post on the topic that I had no proof and therefore was making no accusations.

But it's not a public poll, and your not a mod anymore, how do you see the names?

Well, it not being a public poll you can't. I believe I said I was an ex-mod. As for public polls all players can see the names.

Now let's complete the wiki quote.

And what is disposable income?

Therefore, less taxes = less people below the poverty line.


Nope, sorry, you've misread or misunderstood the definition. Here it is again:


The poverty line is the level of income below which one cannot afford to purchase all the resources one requires to live. People who have an income below the poverty line have no discretionary disposable income, by definition.


They have no discretionary disposable income by definition because they lack the money even to buy the basics required for survival. Since they have less than the amount necessary to live, then obviously they cannot, at the same time, have more than that amount. That's what the definition clearly says. The way your read it makes no sense because it's self-contradictory and leaves out this part: "The poverty line is the level of income below which one cannot afford to purchase all the resources one requires to live."


Don't agree with allowing people to starve just so you can pay fewer taxes?
Vote UDCP!
Getting society's priorities right

Just as you force people from rich, crime-free areas to spend money for the protection of people in crime-ridden areas. Which is, in my opinion, quite right, and I suggest the same principle should be applied to prevent malnutrition or people suffering from preventable diseases. The consequences of poverty stem just as much from society as violence does. A society may not promise you "success", but it should promise you that you'll have a roof over your head, enough to eat and decent healthcare. At the very least.

And if some don't want to pay taxes to ensure that others won't starve, then yes, they should be made to. Just as they're made to fund the police through taxes even if they benefit from it less than others.
Except that the police force should [hopefully] provide the same service from person to person, without any variances or exceptions made based on how much they paid in or how much they're making now. Welfare and wealth redistribution programs would only be comparable if the rich received no benefit from a law enforcement body [since they obviously don't get any from welfare].

Still, even if your example were the case, that doesn't mean it's justified to force someone's resources be put to another use, purely on virtue of the fact that it can. Liberals in this country flock to the stores and spend massive amounts of cash, and then they try to tell the people they give it to how to [i]spend that money, which is tantamount to trying to spend your money twice.

That definition of "poverty line" is a crock of shit. I lived under the poverty line for a year and The only resources I needed in order to survive consisted of rent and food money. The cause and effect of poverty varies from person to person, no blanket stat can be affixed to it.

Because mods who spend a great deal of time in General would notice names that are not familiar to them,
So mods can now act as censors (in the Ancient Roman sense) and effectively remove people from the electoral roll even though the mods are nothing to do with the management of the election? And noticing that some mods are candidates. Ooookkkaaayyy...

and they could check to see if they were in fact puppets. Checks and balances ya know. ;)
Checks and balances dont involve reading peoples' votes :/ I think you're a little confused :confused:

Well, I don't remember conservatives having such a wide majority last time. I agree that a public poll should be made, I mean really whats to stop someone from making a bunch of puppets and using them all to vote? That goes for any and all parties. Last time I suspected the socialist parties not the conservatives, but really, I suspect everyone who isn't me.
I think the "majority" of conservatives is really just an illusion. It'd be like me comparing thos with "Blue" eyes, to those who have "light brown", "dark brown", "mocha", "color of crap" eyes. There are several parties with the name "liberal" in them, into which are divided a large number of the "liberal" votes. I imagine the majority of those who identify themselves as "conservative" have voted for the conservative party.

But I agree with Stephistan that public elections are more secure from puppet-wanking (even if only slightly). Though they obviously don't protect voters from retaliation (ridicule, etc.) for voting one way or another.

Oh well. Whatever.

Except that the police force should [hopefully] provide the same service from person to person, without any variances or exceptions made based on how much they paid in or how much they're making now. Welfare and wealth redistribution programs would only be comparable if the rich received no benefit from a law enforcement body [since they obviously don't get any from welfare].

Still, even if your example were the case, that doesn't mean it's justified to force someone's resources be put to another use, purely on virtue of the fact that it can. Liberals in this country flock to the stores and spend massive amounts of cash, and then they try to tell the people they give it to how to [i]spend that money, which is tantamount to trying to spend your money twice.
How true you are! I just wish people cared enough about poor people to send money to benefit them. Could you imagine if we could raise the amount of money for them that we get for hurricanes?

BTW- It REALLY wasn't my intention to flame anyone, sorry if it looked that way.

Correct me if I'm wrong but a flame is when you post something just for the effect of pissing people off. My post may piss people off, as many posts do, but the intent was to address someone screaming CHEATER without ANY PROOF. Sorry, I just don't like accusations like that. Is cheating possible? YES is there proof? NO It's just as likely that someone cheated FOR the conservatives just to make them look bad. I know one thing, if I were to cheat for a party, I'b be sure to spread the votes out.

Bottom line, theres no call for accusations without proof. It's distatsteful and kindergertenish.
Yeah, and this is an online faux election. Nothing said here will justify such namecalling. I don't feel like opening the Centre right now [I'm lazy] but goddamn it don't do this again. If it's such an inconsequential accusation, then you should have no trouble brushing it off as no big deal.