NationStates Jolt Archive

1. Vote Republican If You Think It's A Good Idea To Put Detailed Atom Bomb Plans On The Internet For Anyone To See. U.S. Web Archive Is Said to Reveal a Nuclear Primer.

Last March, the federal government set up a Web site to make public a vast archive of Iraqi documents captured during the war. The Bush administration did so under pressure from Congressional Republicans who had said they hoped to “leverage the Internet” to find new evidence of the prewar dangers posed by Saddam Hussein.

But in recent weeks, the site has posted some documents that weapons experts say are a danger themselves: detailed accounts of Iraq’s secret nuclear research before the 1991 Persian Gulf war. The documents, the experts say, conschestute a basic guide to building an atom bomb.
Last night, the government shut down the Web site after The New York Times asked about complaints from weapons experts and arms-control officials. A spokesman for the director of national intelligence said access to the site had been suspended “pending a review to ensure its content is appropriate for public viewing.”


Officials of the International Atomic Energy Agency, fearing that the information could help states like Iran develop nuclear arms, had privately protested last week to the American ambassador to the agency, according to European diplomats who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the issue’s sensitivity. One diplomat said the agency’s technical experts “were shocked” at the public disclosures.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/03/world/middleeast/03documents.html?_r=1&hp&ex=1162530000&en=1511d6b3da302d4f&ei=5094&partner=homepage&oref=slogin

2. Vote Republican If You Want To Stay The Course In Iraq.
Bush responded, ‘We’ve never been stay the course, George!’ Watch it: http://thinkprogress.org/2006/10/22/bush-stay-the-course/


3. Vote Republican If You Think The President Should Get Advice On Gay-Bashing From A Pastor Who Secretly Bangs Male Proschestutes. Evangelical Quits After Gay Sex Scandal. Read http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/04/national/main2153399.shtml


4. Vote Republican If You Think The Best Way To Deal With A Child Predator Is To Cover Your Own Ass. In commenting on the scandal involving former Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL), who resigned from Congress amid allegations that he sent sexually explicit messages to underage male former pages, NBC News http://mediamatters.org/items/200610030009

5. Vote Republican If You Hate The Military. Republican say, The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in flowery speeches while slashing veterans’ benefits and combat pay.Republicans fought against the G.I. BILL until the democrats put the pressure on the republicans.

6. Vote Republican If You Like People Who'll Say Literally Anything To Get Elected. Bush,McCain ring a bell?McCain’s flourishing flip-flop list. http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9111.html

7. Vote Republican If You Think The Best Way To Answer A Tough Question Is To Have Your Questioner Beaten Up.
http://www.truthout.org/article/senator-allens-staff-tackles-blogger

8. Vote Republican If You Think That Laws Are For Other People. Bush,Karl Rove and others. The stealth dismissal of U.S. attorneys by the Bush administration carries echoes of the Nixon administration firing special prosecutor Archibald Cox in 1973. Now, as then, we may be witnessing criminal acts of obstruction of justice at the highest levels of government. http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/03/30/205/

9. Vote Republican If You Think It's Cool For Congressmen To Pay Their Mistresses To Keep Quiet Until After Election Day.
ALLENTOWN, Pa. — A Republican congressman accused of abusing his ex-mistress agreed to pay her about $500,000 in a settlement last year that contained a powerful incentive for her to keep quiet until after Election Day, a person familiar with the terms of the deal told The Associated Press.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,227137,00.html?sPage=fnc.politics/youdecide2006

10. Vote Republican If You Still Think That This Crew In Congress Isn't The Most Corrupt, Hypocritical, Useless Bunch Of Asshats You've Ever Seen In Your Life.

CREW released its third annual report on the most corrupt members of Congress enchestled Beyond DeLay: The 22 Most Corrupt Members of Congress (and two to watch). This encyclopedic report on corruption in the 110th Congress documents the egregious, unethical and possibly illegal activities of the most tainted members of Congress. CREW has compiled the members’ transgressions and analyzed them in light of federal laws and congressional rules.
The 22 Most Corrupt Members of Congress are:
Sen. Pete V. Domenici (R-NM)
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)
Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK)
Rep. Ken Calvert (R-CA)
Rep. John T. Doolittle (R-CA)
Rep. Tom Feeney (R-FL)
Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA)
Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA)
Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-LA) Bush Democrat
Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA)
Rep. Gary G. Miller (R-CA)
Rep. Alan B. Mollohan (D-WV) Bush Democrat
Rep. Timothy F. Murphy (R-PA)
Rep. John P. Murtha (D-PA) Bush Democrat
Rep. Steve Pearce (R-NM)
Rep. Rick Renzi (R-AZ)
Rep. Harold Rogers (R-KY)
Rep. David Scott (D-GA) Bush Democrat
Rep. Jerry Weller (R-IL)
Rep. Heather A. Wilson (R-NM)
Rep. Don Young (R-AK)
The two to watch are:
Sen. Larry E. Craig (R-ID) Bush Democrat
Sen. David Vitter (R-LA)
http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/30138

What?

its not like building an atomic bomb is hard once you have the materials.



its getting the weapons grade materials thats the problem.

The 22 Most Corrupt Members of Congress are:
Sen. Pete V. Domenici (R-NM)
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)
Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK)
Rep. Ken Calvert (R-CA)
Rep. John T. Doolittle (R-CA)
Rep. Tom Feeney (R-FL)
Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA)
Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA)
Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-LA) Bush Democrat
Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA)
Rep. Gary G. Miller (R-CA)
Rep. Alan B. Mollohan (D-WV) Bush Democrat
Rep. Timothy F. Murphy (R-PA)
Rep. John P. Murtha (D-PA) Bush Democrat
Rep. Steve Pearce (R-NM)
Rep. Rick Renzi (R-AZ)
Rep. Harold Rogers (R-KY)
Rep. David Scott (D-GA) Bush Democrat
Rep. Jerry Weller (R-IL)
Rep. Heather A. Wilson (R-NM)
Rep. Don Young (R-AK)
The two to watch are:
Sen. Larry E. Craig (D-ID) Bush Democrat
Sen. David Vitter (R-LA)
http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/30138

Just thought I'd point that out.

I like number seven the best cause it has no backing to it. I also like the "no true Scotsman" going on on the democrats. Does anyone else find all the capitals annoying? That was a lot of effort to be so annoying.

Just thought I'd point that out.

There is another future Right wing Democrat that will most likely be elected. Parker Griffith. (Alabama congressional 5th district) On a radio show the other day, he didn't come right out and say it, but gave a strong indication he will be voting for McCain.

There is another future Right wing Democrat that will most likely be elected. Parker Griffith. (Alabama congressional 5th district) On a radio show the other day, he didn't come right out and say it, but gave a strong indication he will be voting for McCain.

What I'm getting at is your title is misleading, your entire post is misleading. It's not simply the Republicans who are at fault here, and as much as you like to deny it, the Democrats who voted for it is also at fault. So really your title should've been.

"Vote Republican or Democrat If You Think It's a Good Idea To..."

Just thought I'd point that out.
I think that the report is biased. It's obvious that at least 80% of the senate is corrupt.:p

Wasn't John Murtha the guy singled out for being anti-war? Hardly a Bush Democrat.

Both Repubs, and Dems suck. Even though I am starting to like McCain more, especially since he would be WAY better than Obama.

Does anyone else find all the capitals annoying?

Extremely. Tell us, Dragontide, why?

I like number seven the best cause it has no backing to it.

Oops. Fixed.

Why vote for anyone? Participation in bourgeois politics is meaningless because nothing will ever change.

Want to build a nuke? Here's how:

1) get a roughly 8lb ball of weapons grade plutonium
2) get several pounds of high explosives. Said explosives have to be stiffer than C4 to ensure proper detonation.
3) Array explosives in a football pattern over the surface of plutonium core.
4) Attach highly precise detonators to each explosive block.
5) Wire each detonator precisely to the trigger.
6) Detonate.

The shaped explosives will force the plutonium core to compress reaching supercritical. At which point it will explode violently. Multi-stage nuclear devices are trickier, but honestly why bother. This simple bomb will be enough to put a major dent into any population center.

Extremely. Tell us, Dragontide, why?

Capitol letters in the title of each one. I didn't make the rules for grammar.

If Murtha and Jefferson are "Bush Democrats", then Nancy Pelosi is zombie Ronald Reagan.

Want to build a nuke? Here's how:

1) get a roughly 8lb ball of weapons grade plutonium
2) get several pounds of high explosives. Said explosives have to be stiffer than C4 to ensure proper detonation.
3) Array explosives in a football pattern over the surface of plutonium core.
4) Attach highly precise detonators to each explosive block.
5) Wire each detonator precisely to the trigger.
6) Detonate.

The shaped explosives will force the plutonium core to compress reaching supercritical. At which point it will explode violently. Multi-stage nuclear devices are trickier, but honestly why bother. This simple bomb will be enough to put a major dent into any population center.

And where exactly would such a person find a 8lb ball of weapons grade plutonium? At their local woolworths?;)

Why vote for anyone? Participation in bourgeois politics is meaningless because nothing will ever change.

Indeed politics is simply the persuit of power, power for it's own sake that is,
no politician really wants to change or effect anything except the balance of power and that only in their own favour. Voting in representative democracies is a pointless and unfunny joke.

And where exactly would such a person find a 8lb ball of weapons grade plutonium? At their local woolworths?;)

Hardest part is getting it. Second hardest part is machining it into a near perfect sphere. Though I'm not sure what kind of tolerances are actually required to get it to go off. By the way I learned how to build a nuke in 8th grade. It's not rocket science.

Obama is not the reform saint he claims to be.

Obama is not the reform saint he claims to be.

yes he is. he is everying that is good and decent and clean in the world.

he makes mother teresa look like a selfish bitch.

Hardest part is getting it.

Maybe K-mart has an aisle labeled "Radioactive Isotopes" :p

Capitol letters in the title of each one. I didn't make the rules for grammar.

That's not a matter of grammar, it's a matter of style, and there are several different ways (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalization#Headings_and_publication_titles) to write titles and not all of them require such an annoying amount of capitalization.

Political corruption?!?! SURELY NOT! YOU LIE!

...

this isn't exactly news.
Though to be fair, if, like South Island said, this website calls Murtha a closet conservative, its bias is so far left it fondles donkeys.

1. Vote Republican If You Think It's A Good Idea To Put Detailed Atom Bomb Plans On The Internet For Anyone To See. U.S. Web Archive Is Said to Reveal a Nuclear Primer.

Who cares when you can buy it on amazon for $31.96 (http://www.amazon.com/Los-Alamos-Primer-Lectures-Atomic/dp/0520075765).

The hard part of building a nuclear bomb is obtaining and refining the material, the easy part is knowing how to do it.

Basically it goes like this: 1. Calculate the critical mass of uranium 2. Take most of the critical mass, put it in a ball 3. Take the rest of the mass, load it into a cannon 4. Fire uranium into the ball of uranium at a time when it is over an enemy city/whatever you want to destroy.

Related Thread Post, Updated Post.

Id say vote Democrat if you think Obama is some kind of reform saint.
That never takes a position on any issue just to try and win your vote.

Obama is for liberal change. Obama is for his own change and to win the election.

According to Obama any opponent is not for change, only he is for change, only he is for good.

Very self righteous, very arrogant.

President Bush is not running for reelection. McCain is running for President. President Bush's name is not on the ballot. McCain's name is on the ballot.
Obama is not the reform saint he claims to be.

he makes mother teresa look like a selfish bitch.

Not that hard.

If Murtha and Jefferson are "Bush Democrats", then Nancy Pelosi is zombie Ronald Reagan.

Democrats = liberal bourgeois

Republicans = conservative bourgeois

I see no real difference.

Don't get me wrong, once upon a time (New Deal Era) voting Democrat to a limited degree was good for workers because the welfare system at least tried to keep the decay and losses incurred by capital to a limited, and to limit the ruinous state of the working class to a minimum.

But these days, especially post Clinton and 'deregulation' the difference is non-existent, both support EXACTLY the same 'free' market economics which decay the state of the workers and degenerate conditions to the lowest possible extent.

yes he is. he is everying that is good and decent
he makes mother teresa look like a selfish bitch.

You mean THE mother Teresa?

The 'contraception and abortion are a threat to world peace' mother Teresa?

The 'the poor deserve to be poor' mother Teresa?

The 'house of the dying' mother Teresa?

The 'their is no genocide in Guatemala' mother Teresa?

please.... I think Satan incarnate would look like a selfish bastard next to that far-right scumbag.

Just thought I'd point that out.


The 22 Most Corrupt Members of Congress are:
Sen. Pete V. Domenici (R-NM)
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)
Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK)
Rep. Ken Calvert (R-CA)
Rep. John T. Doolittle (R-CA)
Rep. Tom Feeney (R-FL)
Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA)
Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA)
Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-LA) Bush Democrat
Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA)
Rep. Gary G. Miller (R-CA)
Rep. Alan B. Mollohan (D-WV) Bush Democrat
Rep. Timothy F. Murphy (R-PA)
Rep. John P. Murtha (D-PA) Bush Democrat
Rep. Steve Pearce (R-NM)
Rep. Rick Renzi (R-AZ)
Rep. Harold Rogers (R-KY)
Rep. David Scott (D-GA) Bush Democrat
Rep. Jerry Weller (R-IL)
Rep. Heather A. Wilson (R-NM)
Rep. Don Young (R-AK)
The two to watch are:
Sen. Larry E. Craig (R-ID) Bush Democrat
Sen. David Vitter (R-LA)
http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/30138

Just though I'd point that out.

Democrats = liberal bourgeois

Republicans = conservative bourgeois

I see no real difference.

Don't get me wrong, once upon a time (New Deal Era) voting Democrat to a limited degree was good for workers because the welfare system at least tried to keep the decay and losses incurred by capital to a limited, and to limit the ruinous state of the working class to a minimum.

But these days, especially post Clinton and 'deregulation' the difference is non-existent, both support EXACTLY the same 'free' market economics which decay the state of the workers and degenerate conditions to the lowest possible extent.
Let me ask you a question Andaras: have you ever had a job? Because I currently hold a job at a fast food restaurant and while the job itself might not be the most luxurious possible I get paid a good wage for being 17 with no prior work experience, and I've found that my bosses genuinely care about the wellbeing of myself and my co-workers. Now, I recognize that this may not be the case everywhere but in the majority of places I've been to it would seem that the employers generally care for their employees' health and welfare.

From a capitalist standpoint, it makes sense: a happy, healthy employee is one that will work faster and more efficiently doing whatever it is he or she needs to do. For the employer, happy healthy employees equal more profits, so they're more inclined to keep the employee around and happy, making him feel more valuable to the employer/company he works for and in turn contributing to his overall happiness. Basically, it all feeds into itself: happy employee = happy employer more inclined to keep the happy employee happy.

To use another example, a company my father worked for ran it's stock on an exclusive basis, where only employees and ex-employees could hold it. Every employee got a set amount of stock (I don't remember how much exactly) upon being hired, and was given more throughout his time there until he became vested at 2.5 years, allowing him to purchase and sell his stock (by which time he could have up to thousands of shares, depending on how the stock splits went). All decisions related to stock and the company in general were decided by a vote of the shareholders, giving each employee a voice in how his company was run.

Tl;dr I think your model of the "poor, oppressed worker" is outdated a bit, and I apologize for derailing the thread.

Oy vey. As someone who fully intends to vote for Obama and quite a few other Democrats this November, I just want to say that I really loathe arguments like that in the OP. "Don't vote for any Republicans because some Republicans have done stupid shit" is not a good argument. "Don't vote for specific Republicans because they, personally, have done stupid shit" is a more reasonable argument. An even better argument might be, "Don't vote for specific Republicans because their policies on various issues are not good ones, and here's why." But hey, it wouldn't be politics if we actually discussed things like how to run the country instead of "some Republicans have mistresses, ergo, all Republicans are incompetent leaders." :rolleyes:

Oy vey. As someone who fully intends to vote for Obama and quite a few other Democrats this November, I just want to say that I really loathe arguments like that in the OP. "Don't vote for any Republicans because some Republicans have done stupid shit" is not a good argument. "Don't vote for specific Republicans because they, personally, have done stupid shit" is a more reasonable argument. An even better argument might be, "Don't vote for specific Republicans because their policies on various issues are not good ones, and here's why." But hey, it wouldn't be politics if we actually discussed things like how to run the country instead of "some Republicans have mistresses, ergo, all Republicans are incompetent leaders." :rolleyes:
I agree. There are corrupt cheating asshats on both sides of the line, thus why I plan on registering independent. I've always said vote for the person, not the party.

EDIT: I personally don't give a damn how corrupt or whatever a politician is in his personal life as long as it doesn't interfere with his ability to properly run whatever he's put in charge of. Private lives should be just that, private. Politicians are no different.

snip

You live in a dream world, you probably live in some up-market area and have petite-bourgeois parents, so you wouldn't know squat about the plight of common working people in America, for whom the decay in capitalist production has brought ruinous fortunes upon them, housing defaults, declining dollar, lowering wages, repression against unions.

Let me ask you a question Andaras: have you ever had a job? Because I currently hold a job at a fast food restaurant and while the job itself might not be the most luxurious possible I get paid a good wage for being 17 with no prior work experience, and I've found that my bosses genuinely care about the wellbeing of myself and my co-workers. Now, I recognize that this may not be the case everywhere but in the majority of places I've been to it would seem that the employers generally care for their employees' health and welfare.

From a capitalist standpoint, it makes sense: a happy, healthy employee is one that will work faster and more efficiently doing whatever it is he or she needs to do. For the employer, happy healthy employees equal more profits, so they're more inclined to keep the employee around and happy, making him feel more valuable to the employer/company he works for and in turn contributing to his overall happiness. Basically, it all feeds into itself: happy employee = happy employer more inclined to keep the happy employee happy.

To use another example, a company my father worked for ran it's stock on an exclusive basis, where only employees and ex-employees could hold it. Every employee got a set amount of stock (I don't remember how much exactly) upon being hired, and was given more throughout his time there until he became vested at 2.5 years, allowing him to purchase and sell his stock (by which time he could have up to thousands of shares, depending on how the stock splits went). All decisions related to stock and the company in general were decided by a vote of the shareholders, giving each employee a voice in how his company was run.

Tl;dr I think your model of the "poor, oppressed worker" is outdated a bit, and I apologize for derailing the thread.

I'm inclined to agree with you in principle except for the fatal flaw of my past job experience. For the most part, my employers have actually cared about my wellbeing and mental health. My last job however saw me treated as a bizarre chimera between completely expendable and overworked. Somehow I was able to tolerate working there for over a year despite constant cut in hours, a severe lack of pay increase to go along with rising minimum wage and generally poor treatment from the management. I wasn't the only one to feel this way either, as my old department rapidly shrunk from 15+ employees to 5 at best.

As a budding historian though, I still have to admit that those conditions are a whole hell of a lot better than those of workers even 20 years ago. Go back 100 years and suddenly radical marxism seems like a really, really good idea.

What do they use to measure corruption, seems to me like William Jefferson (D-LA) would be in a league of his own judging by the amount of bribe money that he hid in his freezer.

You live in a dream world.

this coming from a communist?

this Coming From A Communist?

Qft

You live in a dream world, you probably live in some up-market area and have petite-bourgeois parents, so you wouldn't know squat about the plight of common working people in America, for whom the decay in capitalist production has brought ruinous fortunes upon them, housing defaults, declining dollar, lowering wages, repression against unions.
Actually I come from a blue-collar single parent family. My father's currently out of a job due to the economic downturn, and has been for going on a month. A friend of his just got a new job after nearly three months of unemployment. I know the plight of the common working people in America, because they're the people I talk to and interact with daily. However, in spite of all this I also know that capitalism works. Yes, there are bumps in the road. Yes, there are recessions. Yes, people lose their jobs. But, since the Great Depression there have been to be a long-term recession. I think that's proof enough that the system works.

Also your point about lowering wages is invalid; the U.S. Congress recently raised the minimum wage to something one can actually live off of, though in my experience I've known few adults actually employed at minimum wage.

snippy

I asked this in the Communism thread but you didn't respond:

Who would you describe as the bourgeois in modern day America?

The 22 Most Corrupt Members of Congress are:
Sen. Pete V. Domenici (R-NM)
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)
Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK)
Rep. Ken Calvert (R-CA)
Rep. John T. Doolittle (R-CA)
Rep. Tom Feeney (R-FL)
Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA)
Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA)
Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-LA) Bush Democrat
Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA)
Rep. Gary G. Miller (R-CA)
Rep. Alan B. Mollohan (D-WV) Bush Democrat
Rep. Timothy F. Murphy (R-PA)
Rep. John P. Murtha (D-PA) Bush Democrat
Rep. Steve Pearce (R-NM)
Rep. Rick Renzi (R-AZ)
Rep. Harold Rogers (R-KY)
Rep. David Scott (D-GA) Bush Democrat
Rep. Jerry Weller (R-IL)
Rep. Heather A. Wilson (R-NM)
Rep. Don Young (R-AK)
The two to watch are:
Sen. Larry E. Craig (R-ID) Bush Democrat
Sen. David Vitter (R-LA)
http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/30138

I'd like to know your definitiion of a Bush Democrat...since it's clearly your own opinion that labels them as such.

Also....the bolded parts made me lol...Murtha a "Bush Democrat"?...Craig, a Republican, also a "Bush Democrat"?

Also....the bolded parts made me lol...Murtha a "Bush Democrat"?...Craig, a Republican, also a "Bush Democrat"?

In case you didn't notice, he put bush democrat next to all the democrats to try and revise the list to fit his agenda.

I asked this in the Communism thread but you didn't respond:

Who would you describe as the bourgeois in modern day America?

Bourgeois = Those who buy labor

Proletarian = Those who sell their own labor

You live in a dream world, you probably live in some up-market area and have petite-bourgeois parents,
Most communist teens and college squaters are white, upper-middle class kids that are spoiled by soft parents and have never done and honest hard days work in their life.

so you wouldn't know squat about the plight of common working people in America,
How would you know dick about American workers?

lowering wages,
My wage is higher than it was this time last year.

repression against unions.
Unions, because people want to pay more for their shit.

You're not even that funny anymore. I used to just laugh at your stupidity but now...

Unions, because people want to pay more for their shit.

You're not even that funny anymore. I used to just laugh at your stupidity but now...

Have you ever noticed how union dues always go up in direct correlation with the wage increases that they fight to give you.

Most unions are in it for themselves, not for the members.

Bourgeois = Those who buy labor

Proletarian = Those who sell their own labor

I don't want to go over old ground but there are obviously all kinds of examples of people who do both to one degree or another. Where do you draw the line? A supermarket employee with shares? A low paid manager? A CEO?

That's not a matter of grammar, it's a matter of style, and there are several different ways (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalization#Headings_and_publication_titles) to write titles and not all of them require such an annoying amount of capitalization.

Never mind that he spelled capital wrong.
Capitol=happy little corrupt place in DC
Capital=letters

In case you didn't notice, he put bush democrat next to all the democrats to try and revise the list to fit his agenda.

I would have thought the first half of my post made it clear that I did notice.

I don't want to go over old ground but there are obviously all kinds of examples of people who do both to one degree or another. Where do you draw the line? A supermarket employee with shares? A low paid manager? A CEO?

The line in that case is very simple, you capitalist pig. You see, the supermarket employee who has shares in the company owns his own part in an industry that seeks profit. Because of this, the bourgeois shreholding stock clerk is taking part in owning a company that merely seeks to make money off the back of the poor working class, like the CEO who sells his labor to the company, to further the goals of his stockholding masters who only desire profit, and making them richer.

So when the revolution comes, those stock clerks will rightfully be taken to the wall and shot, for their role in oppressing the poor CEO, the labor of whom they have unfairly taken, in order to increase profits.

See, communism is simple And, as a political ideology that hasn't evolved at all since 1867, it is entirely relevant to modern society.

Vote Republican If You Want To.

But talk about it in the election thread stickied for that purpose.