NationStates Jolt Archive

Ever heard of weekends? Holidays?

If your friends wouldn't help you with such a task, then you've got some dickheads for "friends".

A pool needs concrete and cement, plus pipes (pipes, of course, would be provided as infrastructure). Where do you get the concrete? Order some in exchange for something the concrete factory might need. Same goes for the cement. A deal would be worked out. If you don't have something they need? Well, it's just like not having enough money to build the pool, so there. Tough shit.

A bartering system.

I ATTEND THE LSE. The London School of Economics. THE MOST LEFT WING UNIVERSITY IN THE COUNTRY BY REPUTATION.

I HAVE HEARD ALL LEFTIE RHETORIC, ALL THE COMMUNISTS VIEWS, ALL SOCIALIST VIEWS AND I AM STILL A LIBERAL CAPITALIST.

VOTE NS CLASSIC LIBERALS - VOTE FOR YOUR FREEDOMS.

I was stating an example. How about a kick ass computer?

Where would i get that? Would i get that? most likely not.

Would there be innovation in a communist system. NO. Why? No point, an individual is not going to innovate if they are not going to benefit from their innovation.

Where are you getting this? Why wouldn't one be able to innovate? Surely, the benefit of society as a whole is benefit enough.

However, it goes like this: Necessities first, entertainment later.

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y267/PureMetal/udcp2.jpg





i know its ad hominem and all, but you're a selfish little bastard aren't you?

Can't answer for him, but had you asked me this? Yes, minus the little bastard part.

how many people would join a fascist or democratic totalitarian party if i made one? i made a democratic totalitarian party but noone joined, so i'm going to ask first before trying again? maybe not one of those two things, but atleast an authoritarian party.

Where are you getting this? Why wouldn't one be able to innovate? Surely, the benefit of society as a whole is benefit enough.

However, it goes like this: Necessities first, entertainment later.

It's not a matter of being able to innovate. It's a matter of wanting to bother. It's like when I got in trouble in elementary school for chewing gum and the teacher said it would've been okay if I had brought enough for the whole class. Fuck that, I wanted to chew my own gum and I didn't like those other kids.

To live is to work for a master.
Capitalism is slavery.

"To live is to work for a master" is nonsense. Like communism. I assume you intended to say something that actually made sense?

Under capitalism, you are giving an employer of your choice work in return for pay. If the working conditions at a business are bad, no-one will work there, and they will go out of business.

Under communism, you have no choice.

tell that to the kids who happen to be born in the poorest parts of wales, or the docklands in London, who go to shit schools.
Are you describing me? Sounds like it. Or maybe you are describing Richard Branson, were you.
Opportunity is there if you want it, and are willing to make an effort. Just do not expect it to be handed on a plate to you. What you are proposing is to reduce everything to the lowest common denominator. You complain about shit schools in London and Wales - who pays for those schools? You know the answer. Now look at the good schools around, in the same areas. Who pays for them? So let us get rid of the good schools and reduce everyone to going to a shit school. Great policy.


tell that to the children born in Rowanda who might be lucky enough to walk 15 kilometers to school every day. tell that to the millions who can't afford to do even that.
A light aside to start with, how can they not afford to walk. Is the government going to tax walking as well now? How exactly does your system solve this problem? It does not magicaly providse teachers and schools for students in poor foreign countries. In fact it isolates you from other countries in a good soviet style. Under capitalism these poor countries will have markets to sell their products. (we will have no subsidies etc. go read our manifesto this time) This will provide them with the means to develop as a nation for themselves. Under your system there is only barter for them, and they don't need anything you have to offer.

tell that to the millions who die of poverty each year.
Poverty has never killed anyone. Hunger has, exposure has, disease has, but not having money is not lethal. Eliminating money does not eliminate hunger, exposure or disease. The world is unfair, and people die, we can not prevent that. What free market liberalism does is to open the possibility for the poor to succeed, if they are willing to work at it. What communism does is to close this possibility off for the billions who live outside of your economic disaster zone.

yeah, capitalism really provides equality of opportunity alright
No it does not, but no system does as not all men are born under equal circumstances. What capitalism does is provide hope and a possibility of success. What communism does is provide rules regulations and no chance of ever doing anything within the country and closes of the resources and wealth of the country to those that live outside it.

To live is to work for a master.
Capitalism is slavery.

Boo hoo, I was hired by Microsoft,
That makes me just as oppressed as a tribal warrior captured, sold three times, crammed onto a leaking, disease-ridden container ship hold, and forced to perform manual labor or face harsh physical punishment for the rest of my life with no rights to property, freedom of behavior, freedom of speech or religion. Woe is me. I'm crying all the way to the bank.

It's not a matter of being able to innovate. It's a matter of wanting to bother. It's like when I got in trouble in elementary school for chewing gum and the teacher said it would've been okay if I had brought enough for the whole class. Fuck that, I wanted to chew my own gum and I didn't like those other kids.

It's all a matter of making the technology and means of production available to everyone. Keeping it to yourself completely would be very selfish and heavily frowned upon.

I was stating an example. How about a kick ass computer?

Where would i get that? Would i get that? most likely not.

Would there be innovation in a communist system. NO. Why? No point, an individual is not going to innovate if they are not going to benefit from their innovation.
is economic progress and innovation on the scale and pace we see today in modern consumerist capitalism really a desired thing? unsustainable growth, alienation of the worker from the product, global warming?

certain products would be desired by enough people to warrant research & development, and hence innovation, all facilitated through the tech distribution network.
others have a natural interest in their field, especially those fields which see great innovation like the comuputer industry. people in many of these industries come to their jobs not because they simply want money, but because they are interested in that feild, and want to help advance it... this would very much be the case in the UDCP system.
other fields would be specifically supported and encouraged by the government

it does? well thats not what we agreed on :mad:
damn.

and the exceptions won't be handed out 'willy nilly', but through discussion on local government level - "we have a shortage of doctors" "ok, doctors are off the rota until we work out a solution", or something like that, though i suspect more complicated backed up with employment statistics.
participating in the rota would be encouraged - its your way of truly contributing yourself back to society. and before you say 'why would they want to do that?' remember that human nature is malleable and all that jazz

You noticably do not address the point that a couple of days in fifteen for some of the population just does not cut it in terms of providing the essential but menial tasks.

Go calculate.

Under capitalism, you are giving an employer of your choice work in return for pay. If the working conditions at a business are bad, no-one will work there, and they will go out of business.

Tell that to all the people who were too poor to get an education in the 19th century. The people who had to work in steel mills, coal mines, slaughterhouses, and factories for fuck-nothing, just to get enough money to buy the day's food.

other fields would be specifically supported and encouraged by the government

How? By what means would they be supported and encouraged. No possibility of paying grants, you have no money. How do you get people to study things that you, as the government, want studied when all the motivational tools have been legislated away? I know, you 'require' them to do it. Bye Bye freedom bye bye!

Tell that to all the people who were too poor to get an education in the 19th century. The people who had to work in steel mills, coal mines, slaughterhouses, and factories for fuck-nothing, just to get enough money to buy the day's food.

This may surprise you, but the 19th century is over. This is the 21st century. Note also, that I'm not advocating a state as economically capitalist as the NS Classic Liberals, I'm just advocating a non-communist one.

Boo hoo, I was hired by Microsoft,
That makes me just as oppressed as a tribal warrior captured, sold three times, crammed onto a leaking, disease-ridden container ship hold, and forced to perform manual labor or face harsh physical punishment for the rest of my life with no rights to property, freedom of behavior, freedom of speech or religion. Woe is me. I'm crying all the way to the bank.

You? Opressed? No.

The son of a Mexican immigrant who was too poor to afford said child's education, who now has to work as a janitor for next to nothing? Yes.

This may surprise you, but the 19th century is over. This is the 21st century. Note also, that I'm not advocating a state as economically capitalist as the NS Classic Liberals, I'm just advocating a non-communist one.

Capitalism is Capitalism all the same. If we didn't have unions, working conditions would still be terrible, and the pay would be even worse.

is economic progress and innovation on the scale and pace we see today in modern consumerist capitalism really a desired thing? unsustainable growth, alienation of the worker from the product, global warming?

certain products would be desired by enough people to warrant research & development, and hence innovation, all facilitated through the tech distribution network.
others have a natural interest in their field, especially those fields which see great innovation like the comuputer industry. people in many of these industries come to their jobs not because they simply want money, but because they are interested in that feild, and want to help advance it... this would very much be the case in the UDCP system.
other fields would be specifically supported and encouraged by the government
the capitalist system has led to computers, has led to this site, has led to the internet. You are using the internet, a computer and i bet their are many things you are ideologically against but still own and use.

Damn it people you are still voting all wrong. How many times do we have to threaten to gnaw you to death with our migthy rodent incisors before you vote "correctly". Now I don't want to have to give anyone anymore warnings. No more voting for Commies or Tinker cults! :mad:

You? Opressed? No.

The son of a Mexican immigrant who was too poor to afford said child's education, who now has to work as a janitor for next to nothing? Yes.

Ah, of course. So, capitalism is slavery... if you're a janitor and you're Mexican?

I don't care how "next to nothing" a janitor's wages are, it is NOT slavery, it is NOTHING LIKE slavery, you only find it PROFITABLE POLITICALLY to compare it to slavery in the same way many people find it profitable to make comparisons between their opponents and Hitler, or by calling anyone who's right-of-center economically "fascist" as if free-market is synonymous with Mussolini. People got no respect.

Capitalism is Capitalism all the same. If we didn't have unions, working conditions would still be terrible, and the pay would be even worse.

And when did I say anything about abolition of unions? Can you quote me?

the capitalist system has led to computers, has led to this site, has led to the internet. You are using the internet, a computer and i bet their are many things you are ideologically against but still own and use.

We're not against the products. We're against the manner in which they're made. They aren't made to benefit society --- They're made to make a quick, huge profit.

And when did I say anything about abolition of unions? Can you quote me?

Never. I was just hoping you'd pick up on the fact that Socialism/Communism was responsible for the unions that have kept Capitalism (somewhat) in line.

Ah, of course. So, capitalism is slavery... if you're a janitor and you're Mexican?

Way to take things out of context. It's slavery if you're born into a poor family. Slavery if you don't make acceptable grades in school. Slavery if you're disabled.

I don't care how "next to nothing" a janitor's wages are, it is NOT slavery, it is NOTHING LIKE slavery, you only find it PROFITABLE POLITICALLY to compare it to slavery in the same way many people find it profitable to make comparisons between their opponents and Hitler, or by calling anyone who's right-of-center economically "fascist" as if free-market is synonymous with Mussolini. People got no respect.

Heh. No comment... These things speak for themselves, really.

*I'd suggest a bit less caffeine.

We're not against the products. We're against the manner in which they're made. They aren't made to benefit society --- They're made to make a quick, huge profit.

Yes they are, and if people aren't willing to pay the price, then the price goes down as does their profit.

You probably believe that car manufacturing workers are oppressed and in slavery. That because i hated my job answering calls for an energy company that i was oppressed and enslaved. :rolleyes:

Never. I was just hoping you'd pick up on the fact that Socialism/Communism was responsible for the unions that have kept Capitalism (somewhat) in line.

And I was hoping you'd pick up on the fact that I'm advocating a more-or-less centrist viewpoint, rather than jumping to some ridiculous ideological extreme. If people want to form organizations such as unions to help them get good conditions, they should be free to do so. I want freedom and choice. Not some communist government telling me what's good for me.

It's all a matter of making the technology and means of production available to everyone. Keeping it to yourself completely would be very selfish and heavily frowned upon.

Under communism, my innovation would be forcibly taken from me, and I'd get a "good job, now get back to work, it's your turn to clean the toilets."

Under capitalism, my innovation would be bought from me at a price I agree to, and I can then spend or invest that money as I like.

Under neither system do I keep it to myself completely. Only under one system do I really get rewarded for sharing it, though.

the capitalist system has led to computers, has led to this site, has led to the internet. You are using the internet, a computer and i bet their are many things you are ideologically against but still own and use.
Yes, and the feudalist system led to the invention of bread as we know it today. Does that mean that every time you eat bread, you support feudalism?

Hey, for that matter, slavery-based systems invented the wheel. So every time you use something containing wheels, you implicitly support slavery?

And I was hoping you'd pick up on the fact that I'm advocating a more-or-less centrist viewpoint, rather than jumping to some ridiculous ideological extreme. If people want to form organizations such as unions to help them get good conditions, they should be free to do so. I want freedom and choice. Not some communist government telling me what's good for me.

Same here.

*I'll formulate an ammendment to our manifesto that fixes that little rota issue... I don't much like it.

It seems that no one wants to reply to my points. I guess the pseudo communists can't answer them.

If you want freedom, do not vote socialist/communist.

I, of course, would recommend you vote Classic Liberal, but you are free to vote as you see fit.

And I was hoping you'd pick up on the fact that I'm advocating a more-or-less centrist viewpoint, rather than jumping to some ridiculous ideological extreme. If people want to form organizations such as unions to help them get good conditions, they should be free to do so. I want freedom and choice. Not some communist government telling me what's good for me.
Please, communism doesn't "tell you what's good for you" any more than capitalism does. For one thing, communism gives you a say - a vote - in all decisions, which is far more than can be said about capitalist corporations.

Way to take things out of context. It's slavery if you're born into a poor family. Slavery if you don't make acceptable grades in school. Slavery if you're disabled.

Right... So your saying a capitalist society would not look after the disabled? I'm afraid communist societies have a worse record in that regard.

Acceptable grades? So you are one of those who believe everyone is the same and that noone should get better grades than someone else because that means they are better than someone, give me a break. My dad was born into a poor family, the son of an Austrian immigrant to England, did he complain? No. Did he get good grades? yes he did. Did he achieve social mobility and be successful yes he did. You seem to discount the fact that a large section of the working classes vote for capitalist parties (be it the Conservatives in Britain or the Republicans in America)

Under communism, my innovation would be forcibly taken from me, and I'd get a "good job, now get back to work, it's your turn to clean the toilets."

Under capitalism, my innovation would be bought from me at a price I agree to, and I can then spend or invest that money as I like.

Under neither system do I keep it to myself completely. Only under one system do I really get rewarded for sharing it, though.

1: If you've just invented something, it should be shared with everyone. If you just want it from yourself, then you don't deserve to have it in the first place.

2: Yeah, where only a portion of society would get to have it. Woohoo.

3: Again, what do you consider a "reward"? The fact that your invention has helped benefit an entire nation should be a hell of a reward.

And I was hoping you'd pick up on the fact that I'm advocating a more-or-less centrist viewpoint, rather than jumping to some ridiculous ideological extreme. If people want to form organizations such as unions to help them get good conditions, they should be free to do so. I want freedom and choice. Not some communist government telling me what's good for me.

Strangely like our manifesto really. Freedom of association is built in to freedom of the individual. We are not proposing supporting industry/corporations against the worker nor supporting the worker against the corporation/industries. Business is not government's business.

Please, communism doesn't "tell you what's good for you" any more than capitalism does. For one thing, communism gives you a say - a vote - in all decisions, which is far more than can be said about capitalist corporations.

Oh please, since when do capitalist corporations have to be democratic to their workers? The workers are free to take their labour elsewhere. Communism gives you a say? According to the manifesto, people would be forced to do jobs against their will for a period of time. Democracy is not compatible with Communism, as sooner or later, people are going to think, why should i earn the same as that guy when he slacks off and does nothing? Why should i be treated and given the same as her when she doesn't do her job?

If you have democracy, eventually people will want to better themselves and will vote against communism.

I ATTEND THE LSE. The London School of Economics. THE MOST LEFT WING UNIVERSITY IN THE COUNTRY BY REPUTATION.

I HAVE HEARD ALL LEFTIE RHETORIC, ALL THE COMMUNISTS VIEWS, ALL SOCIALIST VIEWS AND I AM STILL A LIBERAL CAPITALIST.

VOTE NS CLASSIC LIBERALS - VOTE FOR YOUR FREEDOMS.
thats not much of an arguement :p


Are you describing me? Sounds like it. Or maybe you are describing Richard Branson, were you.
Opportunity is there if you want it, and are willing to make an effort. Just do not expect it to be handed on a plate to you. What you are proposing is to reduce everything to the lowest common denominator. You complain about shit schools in London and Wales - who pays for those schools? You know the answer. Now look at the good schools around, in the same areas. Who pays for them? So let us get rid of the good schools and reduce everyone to going to a shit school. Great policy.
actually education is a UDCP top priority.
and yes, there are a few exceptions to the rule, but look at the facts: most of the kids who are born into less privelged backgrounds end up going to worse schools, doing less well in exams and such, and generally having a worse quality of life. the majority of them - thats why people value the good schools so much.
so while the "opportunity is there if you want it", its hardly by equal any stretch in reality.



A light aside to start with, how can they not afford to walk. Is the government going to tax walking as well now? How exactly does your system solve this problem? It does not magicaly providse teachers and schools for students in poor foreign countries. In fact it isolates you from other countries in a good soviet style. Under capitalism these poor countries will have markets to sell their products. (we will have no subsidies etc. go read our manifesto this time) This will provide them with the means to develop as a nation for themselves. Under your system there is only barter for them, and they don't need anything you have to offer.

well first, the schools usually cost money, so its not the walking that they can't afford its the school.
second, even if the school is free many cannot afford the opportunity cost of being away from home, helping raise the family, or the crops. when you live a subsistance life, every pair of hands is valuable, and sending your child to school could mean not being able to eat. very fair.

there is no master plan for bringing schools to an area or getting more teachers - this is a specific issue that no party has or would cover in their manifesto. that aside, there are resources available for these communities (to build schools and such) but they simply cannot afford them (thanks capitalism, the market really helps there!). with communism i can assume that those with the resources would (in a moneyless society) give to those who need it, to build their homes and schools. its called compassion before someone asks "what do they get out of it?"



Poverty has never killed anyone. Hunger has, exposure has, disease has, but not having money is not lethal. Eliminating money does not eliminate hunger, exposure or disease. The world is unfair, and people die, we can not prevent that. What free market liberalism does is to open the possibility for the poor to succeed, if they are willing to work at it. What communism does is to close this possibility off for the billions who live outside of your economic disaster zone.
in many parts of the world, where there is no socialised welfare state, poverty directly leads to these things that kill - starvation, disease, exposure, malnutrition.
in practice capitalism ignores these people in favour of trading between the rich countries - what percentage of trade goes between Europe and the US? a lot (forget the figures), and how much goes between the US and Ethiopia?
capitalism sounds pretty good, speaking of great opportunities, but look at the world around you. the world we live in has over 2/3 of the worlds population under the poverty line, is destroying itself with rampant consumerism and environmental destruction, and millions die because they simply cannot afford to live. capitalism is what we have now, and this is the cause of that system. i cannot accept this loss of life is either necessary, justified or 'fair' as you implied. it doesn't have to be this way, and it doesn't have to be capitalism.


No it does not, but no system does as not all men are born under equal circumstances. What capitalism does is provide hope and a possibility of success.
an admittance that capitalism DOES NOT provide equal opportunities here folks.
maybe in pracice communism won't either, but i'm sure it'll be a damn sight better, more fair and equal than capitalism is.

and closes of the resources and wealth of the country to those that live outside it.

this is why communism is an international doctrine, of course, and this is a true problem i'll admit, but trade can still be done, just not in the way it is today. just because something's done one way now doesn't mean its either the best or only way of doing it.

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y267/PureMetal/UDCPbanner.jpg

Way to take things out of context. It's slavery if you're born into a poor family. Slavery if you don't make acceptable grades in school. Slavery if you're disabled.


Nope. Capitalism isn't slavery.

Since it's you making the assertion, you have the burden of proving it. I would like you to tell me how being born into a poor family, making inacceptable grades in school (hey that's me! I must be a fricking slave!), or being disabled is on a par with daily whippings for not working... to pick just one thing.

I'm willing to bet you've never faced daily whippings for not working, therefore you feel morally justified in claiming you've faced conditions similar to slavery. But you do a great injustice by making the comparison in the first place.


Heh. No comment... These things speak for themselves, really.

*I'd suggest a bit less caffeine.

Funny, I don't take caffeine whatsoever. So is this it? You're a slave because you were poor, and weak-ass implied ad hominems?

I expected more from people who love to claim they hold the moral high ground.

Under communism, my innovation would be forcibly taken from me, and I'd get a "good job, now get back to work, it's your turn to clean the toilets."
Forcibly taken from you? Let's say you make a wheel. Another guy sees it, thinks it's a good idea, and makes his own wheel. Was anything taken from you? No. You're free to use your innovation - and so is everyone else. If your innovation benefits society, then it also benefits you, as a member of that society, when it is put to use. If you invent the wheel, and everyone around you uses your idea to make new and improved tools or means of transportation, you benefit from these new tools and means of transportation yourself.

What libertarians fail to realize is that YOU are part of society, so anything that benefits society implicitly benefits YOU as well.

Please, communism doesn't "tell you what's good for you" any more than capitalism does. For one thing, communism gives you a say - a vote - in all decisions, which is far more than can be said about capitalist corporations.

Oh please, since when do capitalist corporations have to be democratic to their workers? The workers are free to take their labour elsewhere. Communism gives you a say? According to the manifesto, people would be forced to do jobs against their will for a period of time. Democracy is not compatible with Communism, as sooner or later, people are going to think, why should i earn the same as that guy when he slacks off and does nothing? Why should i be treated and given the same as her when she doesn't do her job?

If you have democracy, eventually people will want to better themselves and will vote against communism.

You noticably do not address the point that a couple of days in fifteen for some of the population just does not cut it in terms of providing the essential but menial tasks.

Go calculate.
fair enough. how did you work out it won't be enough?
its a ballpark figure, thats why we're vague about it, and thats also why we keep saying it'll be worked out on a local level - central government simply cannot work it out for the whole population, and obviously neither can i... especially not in a hypothetical situation without even knowing the hypothetical population :p

1: If you've just invented something, it should be shared with everyone. If you just want it from yourself, then you don't deserve to have it in the first place.

2: Yeah, where only a portion of society would get to have it. Woohoo.

3: Again, what do you consider a "reward"? The fact that your invention has helped benefit an entire nation should be a hell of a reward.

1. It "should"? There ought to be a law about that, huh? Someone made something that I didn't think of, how dare they hope to get something in return for it beyond the "good feeling" of "sharing"!

You all seem to advocate a sort of bartering system for trade, but then you go and say that things I come up with "should" be shared with everyone anyway, even if I don't want to share it. If nobody has stuff that I want, why should I give them my inventions? That's not bartering at all. That's the looters taking my stuff against my will.

2. I'm only a portion of society. I "should" (like that term, eh?) only care about a portion of society.

3. It IS a hell of a reward ... if I could eat gratitude. I suppose that since I "should" share my invention with everyone, that everyone "should" give me something of theirs? Hey, maybe now I'll have friends to build that pool I always wanted to have so I could share it with other people!

Way to take things out of context. It's slavery if you're born into a poor family. Slavery if you don't make acceptable grades in school. Slavery if you're disabled.


but the disabled should be killed in the first place. if they don't make good grades in school they don't deserve to get a good job, and it shouldn't matter if anyone is born into a poor family because past family history should have nothing to do with a person. everyone has the exact same oportunity to be as rich or poor as anyone else, so don't feel pity for the poor or weak because it was brought upon themselves by themselves. if they don't have the same ability to be in any power as the other people due to disability or such then they also shouldn't be in any power.

the capitalist system has led to computers, has led to this site, has led to the internet. You are using the internet, a computer and i bet their are many things you are ideologically against but still own and use.
indeed. i live in the real world and am a normal person. but i do think that many of these things are not necessary.

but thats not the point - the point is the side effects of modern capitalism - the overconsumption, the depleting of natural resources, the consumerism and depression, the alienation of the worker, the unsustainable growth levels, the destruction of our environment...

Forcibly taken from you? Let's say you make a wheel. Another guy sees it, thinks it's a good idea, and makes his own wheel. Was anything taken from you? No. You're free to use your innovation - and so is everyone else. If your innovation benefits society, then it also benefits you, as a member of that society, when it is put to use. If you invent the wheel, and everyone around you uses your idea to make new and improved tools or means of transportation, you benefit from these new tools and means of transportation yourself.

What libertarians fail to realize is that YOU are part of society, so anything that benefits society implicitly benefits YOU as well.

Guess what? That's not me sharing. That's someone else seeing it and copying. I don't care about that, because I wasn't forced to share. If someone else is bright enough to be able to mimic something I did, then congratulations to them.

If someone CAN'T copy my invention, though, I don't feel any desire to give them my invention. The people who can't get the wheel probably won't be the ones inventing cars anyway, so I doubt that sharing with them would really implicitly benefit me much at all.

Nope. Capitalism isn't slavery.

Since it's you making the assertion, you have the burden of proving it. I would like you to tell me how being born into a poor family, making inacceptable grades in school (hey that's me! I must be a fricking slave!), or being disabled is on a par with daily whippings for not working... to pick just one thing.

I'm willing to bet you've never faced daily whippings for not working, therefore you feel morally justified in claiming you've faced conditions similar to slavery. But you do a great injustice by making the comparison in the first place.

Ah, so being paid next to nothing, just barely enough to get you through the week, all while having almost no hope of ever getting out isn't slavery? Oh, wait, you have to be chained, whipped, and beaten for it to be slavery. Because we all know that stereotypes are everything.

Funny, I don't take caffeine whatsoever. So is this it? You're a slave because you were poor, and weak-ass implied ad hominems?

I expected more from people who love to claim they hold the moral high ground.

Fair enough, I suppose.

an admittance that capitalism DOES NOT provide equal opportunities here folks.
maybe in pracice communism won't either, but i'm sure it'll be a damn sight better, more fair and equal than capitalism is.
No such thing. A statement that capitalism does not pretend to make all men equal in the way communism does. Capitalism recognises and values the differences between people. It provides opportunities at all levels for all types of people. It does not force all to be equal to the least capable.

There is a thread by Sinahue if you want to twist words.

Oh please, since when do capitalist corporations have to be democratic to their workers? The workers are free to take their labour elsewhere.
That's like saying "it's okay for my country to be a dictatorship, as long as I am free to move to another dictatorship if I want to".

Communism gives you a say? According to the manifesto, people would be forced to do jobs against their will for a period of time.
Someone has to do the menial jobs, and it's best to spread out the effort between as many people as possible in order to minimize the inconvenience to each individual.

Btw, about the "against their will" comment - are you implying that toilet cleaners LIKE their job in capitalism?

Democracy is not compatible with Communism
Actually, communism without democracy doesn't even make sense. You can't have equality if some people boss the others around, can you?

...as sooner or later, people are going to think, why should i earn the same as that guy when he slacks off and does nothing? Why should i be treated and given the same as her when she doesn't do her job?
Indeed they will. And they will go have a nice chat with the guy who does nothing, making it clear that he has to pull his fair share or leave.

No such thing. A statement that capitalism does not pretend to make all men equal in the way communism does. Capitalism recognises and values the differences between people. It provides opportunities at all levels for all types of people. It does not force all to be equal to the least capable.

There is a thread by Sinahue if you want to twist words.

capitalism is equal in opportunity, communism is equal in treatment. i think people tend to get that confused.

1. It "should"? There ought to be a law about that, huh? Someone made something that I didn't think of, how dare they hope to get something in return for it beyond the "good feeling" of "sharing"!

You all seem to advocate a sort of bartering system for trade, but then you go and say that things I come up with "should" be shared with everyone anyway, even if I don't want to share it. If nobody has stuff that I want, why should I give them my inventions? That's not bartering at all. That's the looters taking my stuff against my will.

2. I'm only a portion of society. I "should" (like that term, eh?) only care about a portion of society.

3. It IS a hell of a reward ... if I could eat gratitude. I suppose that since I "should" share my invention with everyone, that everyone "should" give me something of theirs? Hey, maybe now I'll have friends to build that pool I always wanted to have so I could share it with other people!

1: So, something that will advance the nation and benefit everyone doesn't even count as "something in return"? And, what about the recognition you'll receive? What about prizes and medals for your goodwill? This just goes to show that you care far too much about your precious paper and metal... I mean... Money.

2: So, you should only care about yourself? "Sorry, son, I can't take you to the hospital to get that gunshot wound patched up. I'm heading out to the bar to have a few drinks." Think about it.

3: Again, you see money as the only means of giving and receiving for goods. You're saying that you can't get food without money? Absolutely absurd. And, hey, if everyone gives of themselves, everyone receives. Easy as that. And the pool thing? What's the deal here? Why wouldn't everyone be able to build a pool in their own backyards?

indeed. i live in the real world and am a normal person. but i do think that many of these things are not necessary.

but thats not the point - the point is the side effects of modern capitalism - the overconsumption, the depleting of natural resources, the consumerism and depression, the alienation of the worker, the unsustainable growth levels, the destruction of our environment...

You are attributiong the results of human greed to capitalism. Do you realy believe that if we did away with money and private property people would want less, that there would be less pressure on the environment, that people would be happier in their lives.

Well I suppose you do believe this fairy tale. but I don't.

It all comes back to that argument about human nature and all that jazz. :eek:

capitalism is equal in opportunity, communism is equal in treatment. i think people tend to get that confused.

Including yourself Shouldnt it be:

Capialism is equal in opportunity, communism is equal in mistreatment :p

Plenty of room for individuality. Everyone will be free to pursue whatever activities and dreams they may have, for their own benefit and that of society. A society cannot function if individuals are not free to do what they find interesting.
They are not free to refuse state-mandated "grunt" work that is assigned to them. They're not free to bow out of whatever the collective assigns them to do. They can't travel whenever they want because they have to be allocated money from the collective.

If you call that freedom, I'd hate to see slavery.

If someone CAN'T copy my invention, though, I don't feel any desire to give them my invention.
See, there's a wonderful thing about knowledge: you have it, you give it to other people, and you still have it.

If you invent some wonderful new machine in a communist society, no one is going to take it from you. Rather, your neighbors will ask you how you built it - or simply look at the construction process - so they can make their own.

capitalism is equal in opportunity
Are you seriously suggesting that Paris Hilton and the son of a poor factory worker have the same opportunities?

hey can't travel whenever they want because they have to be allocated money from the collective.

Hmm, I didn't know that there was no such thing as free, government-provided transportation in this sort of system.

:rolleyes:

Including yourself Shouldnt it be:

Capialism is equal in opportunity, communism is equal in mistreatment :p

i'm talking about the communism that marx wrote about. the communism i support isn't actually real communism, i'm more for totalitarianism, so for this arguement i'd actually say i support capitalism more, not at all for what it is, but for why it is. not to mean i want a capitalist economy, just fascist.

Are you seriously suggesting that Paris Hilton and the son of a poor factory worker have the same opportunities?

who's paris hilton?

1: So, something that will advance the nation and benefit everyone doesn't even count as "something in return"? And, what about the recognition you'll receive? What about prizes and medals for your goodwill? This just goes to show that you care far too much about your precious paper and metal... I mean... Money.

2: So, you should only care about yourself? "Sorry, son, I can't take you to the hospital to get that gunshot wound patched up. I'm heading out to the bar to have a few drinks." Think about it.

3: Again, you see money as the only means of giving and receiving for goods. You're saying that you can't get food without money? Absolutely absurd. And, hey, if everyone gives of themselves, everyone receives. Easy as that. And the pool thing? What's the deal here? Why wouldn't everyone be able to build a pool in their own backyards?

As I said, if I could use recognition and good will and medals to get food and other necessities as well as things I want rather than need, that would be great. But do you really think that you can convince everyone to be like "Hey! That guy invented blue-ink pens! I should give him some food." ?Especially if the person in question has never heard of me, or doesn't use my invention at all?

2. I suppose the way I worded that could be taken to imply that I meant I only care about myself, but that's not what was intended. Even if it WAS, though, guess what? Having a healthy family is something that matters to me, because it makes me feel good. Additionally, I don't like seeing people I know and care about injured. On the other hand, people that I've never met are less of a concern to me.

3. The pool thing was more of a joke off of previous comments. :D Sorry. What I'm saying is that money is a good medium for trade. What if you want something that your neighbor has, but he doesn't want something you have? You can give him money, because he knows that that money can be used to get something from someone else who may not want stuff that he has.

By the way, the base difference of ideologies makes this difficult. I don't see selfishness as a bad thing.

They are not free to refuse state-mandated "grunt" work that is assigned to them.
So you think it's better to have dedicated "grunts" who have to do such work their entire lives - as is the case under capitalism - than assign a little bit of grunt work to everyone?

They're not free to bow out of whatever the collective assigns them to do.
Yes they are. They can quit and join another collective - just like workers can quit and find a new boss in capitalism. Isn't that your most beloved kind of freedom?

who's paris hilton?

The unreasonably-wealthy heiress of the Hilton hotel chain.

See, there's a wonderful thing about knowledge: you have it, you give it to other people, and you still have it.

If you invent some wonderful new machine in a communist society, no one is going to take it from you. Rather, your neighbors will ask you how you built it - or simply look at the construction process - so they can make their own.
http://armageddonproject.com/ftpdrop/nsclassicliberal4.jpg

:D

who's paris hilton?
An heir to a massive fortune, who never had to work a day in her entire life - she just gets to enjoy daddy's money.

See, there's a wonderful thing about knowledge: you have it, you give it to other people, and you still have it.

If you invent some wonderful new machine in a communist society, no one is going to take it from you. Rather, your neighbors will ask you how you built it - or simply look at the construction process - so they can make their own.


No one is going to take it from me? How do they enforce the "should" that the other poster is using? I suggest that you watch your allies's words.

As I said, I don't mind other people looking at the construction process. But you fail to address why I should bother telling them, in light of my arguments against the "well everyone will benefit" thing.

So you think it's better to have dedicated "grunts" who have to do such work their entire lives - as is the case under capitalism - than assign a little bit of grunt work to everyone?
I do not believe a neurosurgeon should have to dig ditches.

1. It's counterproductive.
2. It puts them at risk for damaging their hands, which they NEED to be a good surgeon.
3. It takes them away from what they do well.

Conversely, if a person does not choose to take advantage of the educational opportunities given to them and all they know how to do is "grunt" work, then that's their choice. If they didn't want to do "grunt" work, they should have strived to do better in their lives.

As I said, if I could use recognition and good will and medals to get food and other necessities as well as things I want rather than need, that would be great. But do you really think that you can convince everyone to be like "Hey! That guy invented blue-ink pens! I should give him some food." ?Especially if the person in question has never heard of me, or doesn't use my invention at all?

Wait --- You're thinking that you have to be given food in exchange for other things? Food would be supplied by the government. And a place in historical references would be very nice, now, wouldn't it?

2. I suppose the way I worded that could be taken to imply that I meant I only care about myself, but that's not what was intended. Even if it WAS, though, guess what? Having a healthy family is something that matters to me, because it makes me feel good. Additionally, I don't like seeing people I know and care about injured. On the other hand, people that I've never met are less of a concern to me.

You would most certainly have a healthy family and friends in this system. What's the problem, then?

3. The pool thing was more of a joke off of previous comments. :D Sorry. What I'm saying is that money is a good medium for trade. What if you want something that your neighbor has, but he doesn't want something you have? You can give him money, because he knows that that money can be used to get something from someone else who may not want stuff that he has.

Fine point, yes. However, it's highly likely that somebody else would have what you're looking for, and you'd have what they're looking for. And, in the meantime, why not borrow what it is you're wanting from said neighbor?

By the way, the base difference of ideologies makes this difficult. I don't see selfishness as a bad thing.

That's where it does indeed get difficult, because I do see selfishness as a bad thing.

[BIG POSTER ON ZERO-POINT ENERGY]
So let me get this straight: The commusocialist collective "stole" your invention... and isn't using it?

Because if you perfected zero-point energy, and the collective "steals" your invention and starts using it, both you and all your neighbors get to benefit from unlimited amounts of free energy.

I think that proves my point, not yours, Tex.

The unreasonably-wealthy heiress of the Hilton hotel chain.

yes. but i'm also against people inheriting things. it should all go to the government. but anyone who's born poor still has the same oportunity to have as much money, or a good job as anyone else.

No such thing. A statement that capitalism does not pretend to make all men equal in the way communism does. Capitalism recognises and values the differences between people. It provides opportunities at all levels for all types of people. It does not force all to be equal to the least capable.

There is a thread by Sinahue if you want to twist words.
but the words i 'twisted' were that capitalism provides "equal opportunities" for those who choose to 'work at it'

capitalism is equal in opportunity
its a pretty common capitalist arguement, and...

Are you seriously suggesting that Paris Hilton and the son of a poor factory worker have the same opportunities?

...its wrong.



You are attributiong the results of human greed to capitalism. Do you realy believe that if we did away with money and private property people would want less, that there would be less pressure on the environment, that people would be happier in their lives.

Well I suppose you do believe this fairy tale. but I don't.

It all comes back to that argument about human nature and all that jazz. :eek:
human greed fuels capitalism - the desire for more, for material aquistion, they fuel consumerism (and are fuelled by it) and ultimatley the whole system of capitalism.

and yes i do believe this, but remember that we're a reformist party. a revolutiuon would just leave people as greedy and selfish as they are today, but under communism = it won't work.
but through education and taking time to evolve (many generations most likely) people can be ready to fit communist utopia. its a fairy tale i choose to believe in, and believe that one day it can be made true.



and with this i go to bed


http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y267/PureMetal/UDCP4.jpg

I do not believe a neurosurgeon should have to dig ditches.

1. It's counterproductive.
2. It puts them at risk for damaging their hands, which they NEED to be a good surgeon.
3. It takes them away from what they do well.

This was already addressed earlier. People in such positions wouldn't do such grunt work.

Conversely, if a person does not choose to take advantage of the educational opportunities given to them and all they know how to do is "grunt" work, then that's their choice. If they didn't want to do "grunt" work, they should have strived to do better in their lives.

This is true, but usually, janitors are people who never had the chance to get a good education (in this part of the country, anyway). That's my problem with it.

Quorum Rule:
NS Classic Liberals 6
Democratic Socialist Party 5
United Democratic Communist Party 3
"Up yours!" Party 3
Cult of TInk Party 3
NS Meritocratic Representative Republicans 2
Party of Whatever Works 2
Revolutionary Trotskyist Party 1
Mole and Other Borrowing Rodents' Alliance 0
Party of Order 0
Total 25

Non-quorum rule:
NS Classic Liberals 5
Democratic Socialist Party 4
Cult of TInk Party 3
United Democratic Communist Party 3
"Up yours!" Party 3
NS Meritocratic Representative Republicans 2
Party of Whatever Works 2
Mole and Other Borrowing Rodents' Alliance 1
Party of Order 1
Revolutionary Trotskyist Party 1
Total 25

CLs still ahead in delegates. Trotskyists close to losing their 4% quorum (still don't have any ruling on that, or its getting lost in all the Communist\Liberal debate. Pease post on election stuff only please, and take your stuff and put it on another thread.

Because if you perfected zero-point energy, and the collective "steals" your invention and starts using it, both you and all your neighbors get to benefit from unlimited amounts of free energy.
If I were a member of the collective, how would that benefit ME? I get free energy already.

this sucks, the RTP is getting slaughtered. Time for a few posters


Help Give The Workers A Say In Politics!
Vote For The Revolutionary Trotskyist Party
http://img240.echo.cx/img240/2406/marxfonz2to.jpg
http://img141.echo.cx/img141/4038/capitalcrime4ge.jpg
http://img154.echo.cx/img154/5192/arms4pc.jpg
http://img99.echo.cx/img99/7111/rats3lq.jpg

If I were a member of the collective, how would that benefit ME? I get free energy already.
Because everybody else would be willing to support you instead of thinking "What a selfish jackass"

This was already addressed earlier. People in such positions wouldn't do such grunt work.
There goes your bullshit "everyone is equal under Communism" argument.

I do not believe a neurosurgeon should have to dig ditches.

1. It's counterproductive.
2. It puts them at risk for damaging their hands, which they NEED to be a good surgeon.
3. It takes them away from what they do well.
Perfectly good points. What you seem to forget, however, is that digging ditches is not the only menial job around. And that even a neurosurgeon can't operate 7 days a week, 365 days a year. His job is stressful and exhausting, and he needs to take many days off. Is it really such a big loss if, in addition to those vacation days, he also has to perform a (simple, non-stressful) menial job 3 days a year?

Conversely, if a person does not choose to take advantage of the educational opportunities given to them and all they know how to do is "grunt" work, then that's their choice. If they didn't want to do "grunt" work, they should have strived to do better in their lives.
You contradict yourself. If they didn't want to do the grunt work, then it obviously wasn't their choice to do it, was it? They do it precisely because they DON'T have a choice.

Perfectly good points. What you seem to forget, however, is that digging ditches is not the only menial job around. And that even a neurosurgeon can't operate 7 days a week, 365 days a year. His job is stressful and exhausting, and he needs to take many days off. Is it really such a big loss if, in addition to those vacation days, he also has to perform a (simple, non-stressful) menial job 3 days a year?Man...I've dug ditches before. I grew up poorer than probably anybody on this forum. Grunt work IS stressful, just in a different way.You contradict yourself. If they didn't want to do the grunt work, then it obviously wasn't their choice to do it, was it? They do it precisely because they DON'T have a choice.
Wow. You have to be the master at ignoring an argument. I SAID that they had the same educational opportunities as everyone else. If they didn't take advantage of those opportunities and ended up doing grunt work, then that was their choice.

Like I said before, I grew up POOR. I worked my ass off to get where I am. Nothing was ever handed to me just because I was born. I don't believe anyone should have anything just given to them just because they exist.

this sucks, the RTP is getting slaughtered. Time for a few posters
Did it ever occur to you that the reason you're getting slaughtered could partially be because of your posters?

Just a thought. :)

Did it ever occur to you that the reason you're getting slaughtered could partially be because of your posters?

Just a thought. :)

I agree with that. The RTP has relied almost entirely on attacking opposing parties (or vague ideas about them) rather than making its own party look good.

and yes i do believe this, but remember that we're a reformist party. a revolutiuon would just leave people as greedy and selfish as they are today, but under communism = it won't work.
but through education and taking time to evolve (many generations most likely) people can be ready to fit communist utopia.
Ummm, comrade, there's a reason why Marxism says there should be an intermediary period of socialism between capitalism and communism. This period of socialism fills precisely the role you described - that of slowly moving people and society away from the capitalist mindset and towards the communist one.

A "reformist" is someone who thinks socialism itself (not communism) can only be introduced through slow reforms. This is an exaggeration, which is why communists oppose reformism.

Ummm, comrade, there's a reason why Marxism says there should be an intermediary period of socialism between capitalism and communism. This period of socialism fills precisely the role you described - that of slowly moving people and society away from the capitalist mindset and towards the communist one.
indeed, but my point is there's no point in revolution now. well kinda it was... its 2am and i'm tired, and i'm still trying to get to bed!
damn this thread for being so enticing...


A "reformist" is someone who thinks socialism itself (not communism) can only be introduced through slow reforms. This is an exaggeration, which is why communists oppose reformism.
well thats not what i've learned. the term reformist can be used in this context anyway - reforming towards communism. reforming is the means by which you achieve the goal, and has no relation to the goal itself be it socialism or communism

There goes your bullshit "everyone is equal under Communism" argument.

Under the current system in the manifesto, it's this way. I will be offering an ammendment, though. My argument is hardly gone... Just postponed for the meantime.

Man...I've dug ditches before. I grew up poorer than probably anybody on this forum. Grunt work IS stressful, just in a different way.
I thought I said it should be some grunt work OTHER THAN digging ditches or any physically exhausting task.

Wow. You have to be the master at ignoring an argument. I SAID that they had the same educational opportunities as everyone else. If they didn't take advantage of those opportunities and ended up doing grunt work, then that was their choice.
Firstly, not everyone has the same opportunities, educational or otherwise. Secondly, success is largely based on luck - being in the right place at the right time and having the right skills. Thirdly, as I pointed out before, the word "choice" is incorrect - no one chooses to do things they don't like. Perhaps you mean they have the misfortune to be in a position where they don't have a choice and must do things they don't like in order to earn a living.

Like I said before, I grew up POOR. I worked my ass off to get where I am.
Yes, a great number of libertarians are smug elitist bastards who were born poor but eventually got rich, and now believe that any poor guy who doesn't copy their life story just isn't trying hard enough - while failing to realize that it's logically impossible to have a country where everyone is a boss and no one is a worker.

Nothing was ever handed to me just because I was born. I don't believe anyone should have anything just given to them just because they exist.
You had a rough time. Why do you insist that everyone should have the same rough time you did? If it were possible to make sure no one would ever be born poor like you were, wouldn't that be a good idea?

You had a rough time. Why do you insist that everyone should have the same rough time you did? If it were possible to make sure no one would ever be born poor like you were, wouldn't that be a good idea?

You mean you would make it so that EVERYONE is born poor

You mean you would make it so that EVERYONE is born poor

Erm... How's that?

indeed, but my point is there's no point in revolution now.
Anything that gets us to socialism - reform, revolution, whatever - is good as long as it gets the job done.

Any reforms should be relatively quick, however. The history of social democracy shows what happens when you implement your socialist reforms too slowly - you eventually give up on the whole goal of reaching socialism.

Anything that gets us to socialism - reform, revolution, whatever - is good as long as it gets the job done.

Any reforms should be relatively quick, however. The history of social democracy shows what happens when you implement your socialist reforms too slowly - you eventually give up on the whole goal of reaching socialism.

Ahh so you would give up as if you go slowly people realise, this is crap and say no to it and want to go back to capitalism

I understand now :p

http://armageddonproject.com/ftpdrop/nsclassicliberal6.jpg

Yes, a great number of libertarians are smug elitist bastards who were born poor but eventually got rich, and now believe that any poor guy who doesn't copy their life story just isn't trying hard enough - while failing to realize that it's logically impossible to have a country where everyone is a boss and no one is a worker.
Illogical is thinking that you can have a nation of workers with no bosses and where NOONE will want to be the boss...where noone will want to be any better than they already are.

That's called being stagnant.

NS CLASSIC LIBERALS - GIVING YOU POWER OVER YOUR OWN LIFE

Don't vote commie! (http://prodtn.cafepress.com/4/9244544_F_tn.jpg)

Vote MOBRA!!!

All fear the giant rat army! (http://www.english-zone.com/funstuff/ratattack.jpg)

Down with surfacer tyranny (http://www.spauda.lt/history/a-hitler.jpg)

This is great, the militaristic communists have only one more vote than the militaristic molemen.

http://armageddonproject.com/ftpdrop/nsclassicliberal7.jpg

Don't vote commie! (http://prodtn.cafepress.com/4/9244544_F_tn.jpg)

Vote MOBRA!!!

All fear the giant rat army! (http://www.english-zone.com/funstuff/ratattack.jpg)

Down with surfacer tyranny (http://www.spauda.lt/history/a-hitler.jpg)

You do realise you are almost as popular as Trotsky and his girlfriend.

If you voted for the POWW Party, please send a TG to The Free Republic of Eutrusca. I need your input on something. :)

http://armageddonproject.com/ftpdrop/nsclassicliberal8.jpg

http://armageddonproject.com/ftpdrop/nsclassicliberal2.jpg

http://armageddonproject.com/ftpdrop/nsclassicliberal6.jpg

http://img212.echo.cx/img212/2923/udcpposter5hm.jpg

"If THIS be your wallet under Capitalism..."

Great. Not only do they steal my campaign ideas, they make it into an ebonics lesson. :rolleyes:

"If THIS be your wallet under Capitalism..."

Great. Not only do they steal my campaign ideas, they make it into an ebonics lesson. :rolleyes:

I can't say I know what you're talking about

I can't say I know what you're talking about
An example of ebonics:
Yo, Big Daddy upstairs,
You be chillin
So be yo hood
You be sayin' it, I be doin' it
In this here hood and yo's
Gimme some eats
And cut me some slack, Blood
Sos I be doin' it to dem dat diss me
Don't be pushing me into no jive
Ang keep dem crips away
Cause you always be da man, G
Straight up.
Aa-men.

I actually thought it sounded more like a pirate, anyway I fixed it now.

Argh...

Well, thought I would go ahead and post these here too.

Vote NS Meritocratic Represenative Republicans!!

http://img92.echo.cx/img92/6455/anticommunistposter0bg.png (http://www.imageshack.us)


http://img294.echo.cx/img294/3109/poster6rw.png (http://www.imageshack.us)

Whoooo boy it's really hard for me to hold my tounge in the face of some of this staggeringly idiotic rhetoric. I'd prefer to save my big guns for Parliament. I hope I get to see you there Constantinopolis.

Possibly the most frustrating thing about all of this is I've got the single best argument I've ever seen against Capitalism up my sleeve... and its answer.

It really says something about the ideology in question if a diehard opponent of it offers the best argument for its defense. The Lefties are gonna wanna boo me out of Parliament. I can't wait!

Whoooo boy it's really hard for me to hold my tounge in the face of some of this staggeringly idiotic rhetoric. I'd prefer to save my big guns for Parliament. I hope I get to see you there Constantinopolis.

Possibly the most frustrating thing about all of this is I've got the single best argument I've ever seen against Capitalism up my sleeve... and its answer.

It really says something about the ideology in question if a diehard opponent of it offers the best argument for its defense. The Lefties are gonna wanna boo me out of Parliament. I can't wait!

Well, considering that communism is nothing more than hogwash, anyone with an imagination can easily come up with an argument for it. Just suspend reality and it all makes sense.

Whoooo boy it's really hard for me to hold my tounge in the face of some of this staggeringly idiotic rhetoric. I'd prefer to save my big guns for Parliament. I hope I get to see you there Constantinopolis.

Possibly the most frustrating thing about all of this is I've got the single best argument I've ever seen against Capitalism up my sleeve... and its answer.

It really says something about the ideology in question if a diehard opponent of it offers the best argument for its defense. The Lefties are gonna wanna boo me out of Parliament. I can't wait!
Okay... you HAVE to telegram me and let me in on what you've learned. :D

Go on, I'm not taking this seriously anyway. Anyone who is should be shot. :rolleyes:

Okay... you HAVE to telegram me and let me in on what you've learned. :D
Sent.

and as stated in the manifesto some would be exempt from the rota if needed, such as medical staff. plus you are assuming the whole system is completely inflexible.
And what do you do when most of your population, if they are truly FREE to pursue their own educational path, notice that medical staff are exempt from the shit jobs and get medical degrees? Do you then start telling people what they can study and major in to make sure that you can cover other jobs?

Freedom and Communism do NOT mix.

http://armageddonproject.com/ftpdrop/udcp1.gif

And what do you do when most of your population, if they are truly FREE to pursue their own educational path, notice that medical staff are exempt from the shit jobs and get medical degrees?

Not sure if it's in the manifesto, but when we discussed it on the forums we decided that only professions that were in high demand in an area would be exempt

So if more people became doctors they would be included in the rota

Not sure if it's in the manifesto, but when we discussed it on the forums we decided that only professions that were in high demand in an area would be exempt
But Communism has nothing to do with supply and demand. Isn't that a Capitalistic ideal?

When you FORCE someone to do what they would not do on their own, THAT IS NOT FREEDOM. :headbang:

When you FORCE someone to do what they would not do on their own, THAT IS NOT FREEDOM. :headbang:

Neither is somebody having to do grunt work their entire lives because they didn't have a chance at anything better.

I'm not on very good terms with the whole rota thing, but I must admit that it's far better than having people who specialise in such things.

Not sure if it's in the manifesto, but when we discussed it on the forums we decided that only professions that were in high demand in an area would be exempt

So if more people became doctors they would be included in the rota
As much as I don't care for your politics, I did in fact laugh out loud at your sig. That's some funny stuff.

Neither is somebody having to do grunt work their entire lives because they didn't have a chance at anything better.
If you'd bother to read our manifesto, you'd notice that we have policies that give everyone the same opportunity to have a good education. Whether they take advantage of it and advance themselves or not is their choice. In essence, if they are stuck doing grunt work their whole lives, it's their choice...their FREEDOM to choose.

If you'd bother to read our manifesto, you'd notice that we have policies that give everyone the same opportunity to have a good education. Whether they take advantage of it and advance themselves or not is their choice. In essence, if they are stuck doing grunt work their whole lives, it's their choice...their FREEDOM to choose.

Sounds reasonable, however, I will ask you this: Is education free?

Also, what really gets my goat are you people that truly believe that poor people are stuck in their circumstances and cannot change them. That they are born without opportunity. I can tell you from firsthand experience that idea is horseshit.

I grew up dirt poor...and I mean DIRT poor. I lived in the middle of the sticks. I had no father growing up (they divorced when I was 5). My mother fed me, my sister and herself on $15 a week.

I worked my ass off and made sure I educated myself in order to do better in life. No one in my family has ever taken an handout from anyone and I've never felt entitled to anything because I was born a "poor hick redneck".

I am living proof that ANYONE has the opportunity to do better if they just get off their lazy fucking ass and WORK for it.

Looks like you did answer it... Finally.

Sounds reasonable, however, I will ask you this: Is education free?
From our Manifesto:
Education
Free basic education (6 to 12) provided for all children as this is of utility to society. Low interest loans provided for furthered education. The government shall have no control nor influence on the educational curriculum for those aged 12 or above. This shall be the free choice of the institution. The parents and or children shall be free to choose which institution they desire to attend, including the option of none.

Also, what really gets my goat are you people that truly believe that poor people are stuck in their circumstances and cannot change them. That they are born without opportunity. I can tell you from firsthand experience that idea is horseshit.

I grew up dirt poor...and I mean DIRT poor. I lived in the middle of the sticks. I had no father growing up (they divorced when I was 5). My mother fed me, my sister and herself on $15 a week.

I worked my ass off and made sure I educated myself in order to do better in life. No one in my family has ever taken an handout from anyone and I've never felt entitled to anything because I was born a "poor hick redneck".

I am living proof that ANYONE has the opportunity to do better if they just get off their lazy fucking ass and WORK for it.
Amen brother. I can't say my upbringing was anywhere near as difficult as yours, but I've also experienced poverty firsthand, having lived for the better part of two months on six dollars. I ate ramen noodles and peanut butter straight out of a jar. Not together of course, because that's just damn gross.

However, I was responsible enough to be aware of my circumstance and furthermore, of my respsonsibility to do something about it. I refused to let someone else pay my way; that's a cop out and we all know it.

Social advancement is not a right, it's a responsibility.

Looks like you did answer it... Finally.
Why did you edit out the part where you said that I contradicted myself? Also, HOW did I contradict myself?

-snip-

The free part is quite nice. The loan part turned me off.

Amen brother. I can't say my upbringing was anywhere near as difficult as yours, but I've also experienced poverty firsthand, having lived for the better part of two months on six dollars. I ate ramen noodles and peanut butter straight out of a jar. Not together of course, because that's just damn gross.

However, I was responsible enough to be aware of my circumstance and furthermore, of my respsonsibility to do something about it. I refused to let someone else pay my way; that's a cop out and we all know it.

Social advancement is not a right, it's a responsibility.

1: I know where you're coming from with the food shortage issue. I've had that before (though not quite THAT bad). Three people at a combined weight of 600 pounds on $275 a month for food... You do the math. Not terrible, but close. I made it through one day by eating ice cream cones with chocolate syrup... Without the ice cream.

2: This is where I'm stuck. See, in my situation, I (or my brother, for that matter) can't get a job to help our situation. Why? We'll lose food stamp benefits and medical coverage. And, with the jobs we'd get, we wouldn't even be able to pay for those things. We might end up with around $240 a month for food, but medical coverage? Probably not.

We used to get $350 a month for food stamps, and that was actually almost enough for a whole month. Why did they lower it? Well, my dad tried to start working again (serious health issues had him bedridden for the better part of two years). This was for about a week and a half. Did he make any money? No. However, the government found out that he was working, and even though he didn't make a single penny during that stint, they slashed our food stamps. They put us down to $275 a month, which is where we still are.

It's a very difficult situation, which can't be helped until my brother graduates (he has two years left at UH). At least we have welfare to help us... If we didn't, fuck knows where I'd be right now.

Why did you edit out the part where you said that I contradicted myself? Also, HOW did I contradict myself?

I thought that post was your "answer" to my question. It wasn't, so I changed my answer accordingly.

It's like this: You said everyone had an equal opportunity to get an education, then I asked if it was free. I see that post after mine, so it seemed to me that it was, in fact, *not* free, thus meaning it wouldn't be on equal terms for everyone.

However, it clearly isn't that way, so I edited.

The free part is quite nice. The loan part turned me off.



1: I know where you're coming from with the food shortage issue. I've had that before (though not quite THAT bad). Three people at a combined weight of 600 pounds on $275 a month for food... You do the math. Not terrible, but close. I made it through one day by eating ice cream cones with chocolate syrup... Without the ice cream.

2: This is where I'm stuck. See, in my situation, I (or my brother, for that matter) can't get a job to help our situation. Why? We'll lose food stamp benefits and medical coverage. And, with the jobs we'd get, we wouldn't even be able to pay for those things. We might end up with around $240 a month for food, but medical coverage? Probably not.

We used to get $350 a month for food stamps, and that was actually almost enough for a whole month. Why did they lower it? Well, my dad tried to start working again (serious health issues had him bedridden for the better part of two years). This was for about a week and a half. Did he make any money? No. However, the government found out that he was working, and even though he didn't make a single penny during that stint, they slashed our food stamps. They put us down to $275 a month, which is where we still are.

It's a very difficult situation, which can't be helped until my brother graduates (he has two years left at UH). At least we have welfare to help us... If we didn't, fuck knows where I'd be right now.
I too see where you're coming from; but best leave the debate on how to solve these problems to Parliament, no?

Can anybody who didn't vote for Tink please raise you hand. :sniper:

I too see where you're coming from; but best leave the debate on how to solve these problems to Parliament, no?

That would be a good idea, yes. But, if I don't like the outcome? I'll just step out. Easy as that.

:D

With all that said...I'm going to sleep. It's nearly 4am.

I'll be back for more of this slamfest tomorrow. *snores*

With all that said...I'm going to sleep. It's nearly 4am.

I'll be back for more of this slamfest tomorrow. *snores*

Yeah... I was thinking of going to sleep a good many hours ago. Damn you, Husker Du! Your music is so good that it makes me stay up longer than I should!!

Can anybody who didn't vote for Tink please raise you hand. :sniper:

Fine. I'll vote for Tink if you'll stop shooting people!

Fine. I'll vote for Tink if you'll stop shooting people!

Very well. :fluffle:

So does this really do anything or is it for some RPing purpose?

If it was sorry I voted for the Classic Liberal ones...

Yea.. the Region and stuff I am.. we've eben taking this game a a joke since like 2000..

Very well. :fluffle:

Alright, then. Done.

One less thing for you to complain about.
Hi, by the way.

Alright, then. Done.

One less thing for you to complain about.
Hi, by the way.

Hi. I'm just about sick of complaining. Once more maybe: I'm a very confused, very angry boy. :headbang:

Hi. I'm just about sick of complaining. Once more maybe: I'm a very confused, very angry boy. :headbang:

Everyone is. All you can do is substitute "boy" for "man", "woman" or "girl"

I'll probably regret saying this Funky Beat, but we probably should have voted Liberal. :headbang:

I'll probably regret saying this Funky Beat, but we probably should have voted Liberal. :headbang:

Don't jump ship, CC. Look at it this way. Tink's doing better than the Democrats (Australian Democrats, that it). :p

Don't jump ship, CC. Look at it this way. Tink's doing better than the Democrats (Australian Democrats, that it). :p

What am I saying? I actually started to take this seriously. Just the mood I'm in I suppose. If it happens again shoot me.

What am I saying? I actually started to take this seriously. Just the mood I'm in I suppose. If it happens again shoot me.

Why the mood?
Don't worry, I'm just setting my scope...

Why the mood?
Don't worry, I'm just setting my scope...

Make sure you use hollow points. Don't know why the mood. Having a really good weekend though.

Make sure you use hollow points. Don't know why the mood. Having a really good weekend though.

That's nice to hear. What have you been up to?

It amuses me greatly that it goes from hardcore debating of policy to "yo dude sup :D"

It amuses me greatly that it goes from hardcore debating of policy to "yo dude sup :D"

The beauty of democracy. ;) Back to "hardcore debating", then:


Do you want more than a toss-up between poverty and the possibility of exploiting your fellow human beings for senseless profit?

Vote for a party that will respect your RIGHTS and DIGNITY as a HUMAN BEING. Vote for EQUALITY. Vote for SOCIAL RIGHTS and RESPONSIBILITY.

VOTE UDCP!

http://img232.echo.cx/img232/4370/homeless1ew.jpg
http://img164.echo.cx/img164/1472/greetings6pp.jpg

http://www.hlj.me.uk/nsclassicliberal7A.jpg

http://img212.echo.cx/img212/2923/udcpposter5hm.jpg
heh beat me to it :D

The NS Classic Liberals tell you that being born, and contributing to society, does not give you any rights other than that of being left “free” to struggle for survival.

We tell you that being born, and contributing to society, means you have the right for society to ensure you have decent living conditions, and means you have the responsibility to help ensure all members of society have equally decent living conditions.

The NS Classic Liberals tell you that the “right” to selfishness must be upheld and protected.

We tell you that your essential rights as a human being should not be downtrodden and crushed by the selfishness of others. We tell you that your right to decent living conditions, your right to pursue work and leisure you deem interesting, are more important than anyone’s right to amass ever more useless profit from the sweat of your work.

Vote for a party that will respect your RIGHTS and DIGNITY as a HUMAN BEING. Vote for EQUALITY. Vote for SOCIAL RIGHTS and RESPONSIBILITY.

VOTE UDCP!

As a sidenote, this is the second time the "Up yours!" Party has taken a sudden leap in votes. They leapt ahead by eleven votes in just a few minutes yesterday, and have leapt ahead by five votes in just a few minutes today.

As a sidenote, this is the second time the "Up yours!" Party has taken a sudden leap in votes. They leapt ahead by eleven votes in just a few minutes yesterday, and have leapt ahead by five votes in just a few minutes today.
Its called IRC, i think melkor is using that to get votes.


Oh and pure metal, how come you are supporting the communists and not the democratic socialists??

Your website clearly states My political opinion is somewhat socialist (not communist).

http://armageddonproject.com/ftpdrop/nsclassicliberal2.jpg

http://armageddonproject.com/ftpdrop/nsclassicliberal8.jpg

VOTE NS CLASSIC LIBERAL - WE WILL FIGHT FOR YOUR FREEDOMS

http://www.hlj.me.uk/UDCP%205.jpg

* "Free" is debatable, as we have seen on this tread

http://www.hlj.me.uk/UDCP%205.jpg

* "Free" is debatable, as we have seen on this tread

DON'T VOTE FOR A PARTY THAT CANNOT SPELL THE WORD DYING.

VOTE FOR THE NS CLASSIC LIBERALS

The NS Classic Liberals tell you that being born, and contributing to society, does not give you any rights other than that of being left “free” to struggle for survival.

We tell you that being born, and contributing to society, means you have the right for society to ensure you have decent living conditions, and means you have the responsibility to help ensure all members of society have equally decent living conditions.

The NS Classic Liberals tell you that the “right” to selfishness must be upheld and protected.

We tell you that your essential rights as a human being should not be downtrodden and crushed by the selfishness of others. We tell you that your right to decent living conditions, your right to pursue work and leisure you deem interesting, are more important than anyone’s right to amass ever more useless profit from the sweat of your work.

Vote for a party that will respect your RIGHTS and DIGNITY as a HUMAN BEING. Vote for EQUALITY. Vote for SOCIAL RIGHTS and RESPONSIBILITY.

VOTE UDCP!
*claps*


http://www.pngfootball.com/Carole's%20Corner%20Nederland/crowds%20cheering.jpg
the people love the UDCP! :D

DON'T VOTE FOR A PARTY THAT CANNOT SPELL THE WORD DYING.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=dieing


2 entries found for dieing (note the spelling asshole)

To cease living; become dead; expire.
To cease existing, especially by degrees; fade: The sunlight died in the west.
To experience an agony or suffering suggestive of that of death: nearly died of embarrassment
....


shall i go on?

who's paris hilton?
You incredibly lucky bastard. I so miss the days when I could say that!

Good god Jolt.com is having problems!

http://www.pngfootball.com/Carole's%20Corner%20Nederland/crowds%20cheering.jpg
the people love the UDCP! :D

Seeing as that is a sports game, it is one of the most capitalist things you can get as professional athletes are the a shining example of supply and demand in respect to their wages.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=dieing
shall i go on?

From the same website http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=dying
intr.v. died, dy·ing, (dng) dies

1. To cease living; become dead; expire.
2. To cease existing, especially by degrees; fade: The sunlight died in the west.
3. To experience an agony or suffering suggestive of that of death: nearly died of embarrassment.
4. Informal. To desire something greatly: I am dying for a box of chocolates. She was dying to see the exhibit.
5.
1. To cease operation; stop: If your vehicle dies, stay with it.
2. To be destroyed, as in combat: could see the remains of two aircraft that had died in the attack.
6. To become indifferent: had died to all worldly concerns.

And another, http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=dieing&x=0&y=0

The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search box to the right.
The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search box to the right.

Suggestions for dieing:

1. dyeing
2. dying
3. ding
4. DH-ing
5. doing
6. dung
7. dawing
8. dang
9. dieting
10. diking
11. dingo
12. dicing
13. dingy
14. dining

Plus the dictionary i have with me says it is dying not dieing.

the dictionary i have here says dieing is ok.

the dictionary i have here says dieing is ok.

dieing was not found in the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary

Did you spell it correctly? Here are some alternatives:

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/results.asp?searchword=dieing&image.x=0&image.y=0

EDIT:
I wasn't sure myself, so i checked a few dictionaries, maybe its ok in american english but not in proper english

Seeing as that is a sports game, it is one of the most capitalist things you can get as professional athletes are the a shining example of supply and demand in respect to their wages.
get a sense of humour :rolleyes:

get a sense of humour :rolleyes:
I like to nitpick, especially with communists :p

Force of habit

*claps*


*bows*

Good work with all the banners, by the way! :)

http://armageddonproject.com/ftpdrop/nsclassicliberal2.jpg

http://armageddonproject.com/ftpdrop/nsclassicliberal8.jpg

VOTE NS CLASSIC LIBERAL - WE WILL FIGHT FOR YOUR FREEDOMS

Our opponents will have you believe that communism equals poverty. They are hoping to scare you away from voting to uphold the rights and dignity of all human beings. They are hoping you will not read our manifesto.

In the society we propose, there will be no poverty, because there will be no money. Our opponents know this, but still they tell you untruths because they are hoping you will not have read our manifesto.

Find out the truth for yourself. Do not be swayed by propaganda. Read our manifesto (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=418610).

VOTE UDCP!

Our opponents will have you believe that communism equals poverty. They are hoping to scare you away from voting to uphold the rights and dignity of all human beings. They are hoping you will not read our manifesto.

In the society we propose, there will be no poverty, because there will be no money. Our opponents know this, but still they tell you untruths because they are hoping you will not have read our manifesto.

Find out the truth for yourself. Do not be swayed by propaganda. Read our manifesto (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=418610).

By all means read their manifesto, i encourage it. See that you will be forced to do jobs against your will, jobs that noone wants to do, like cleaning toilets and digging ditches for 2 week periods or more.

See also that if some professions are needed, aka surgeons, they will be exempt from those jobs.

Kind of screws over their "Everyone is equal under Communism" argument doesn't it?

Seeing as that is a sports game, it is one of the most capitalist things you can get as professional athletes are the a shining example of supply and demand in respect to their wages.

They can't be "shining examples" of supply and demand. "Professional" sports is too busy taking huge amounts of government welfare and pork and stealing people's property via eminent domain.

"From 1990 to 2003 there were 66 major construction and renovation projects for professional sports stadiums and arenas in the U.S., costing $17.3 billion, according to the League of Fans, a sports welfare watchdog group founded by Ralph Nader. Sixty percent of the funding, or an estimated $10.3 billion, came from the public purse. ... Sports owners have long used eminent domain as a way to acquire property cheaply. Sports economists estimate that half of the post-1990 stadium and arena construction has involved eminent domain—and even when it wasn’t invoked, it was understood that condemnation could be a last resort if the teams encountered stubborn landowners."
-- Demolishing Sports Welfare by Daniel McGraw ( http://www.reason.com/0505/fe.dm.demolishing.shtml )

They can't be "shining examples" of supply and demand. "Professional" sports is too busy taking huge amounts of government welfare and pork and stealing people's property via eminant domain.

"From 1990 to 2003 there were 66 major construction and renovation projects for professional sports stadiums and arenas in the U.S., costing $17.3 billion, according to the League of Fans, a sports welfare watchdog group founded by Ralph Nader. Sixty percent of the funding, or an estimated $10.3 billion, came from the public purse. ... Sports owners have long used eminent domain as a way to acquire property cheaply. Sports economists estimate that half of the post-1990 stadium and arena construction has involved eminent domain—and even when it wasn’t invoked, it was understood that condemnation could be a last resort if the teams encountered stubborn landowners."
-- Demolishing Sports Welfare by Daniel McGraw ( http://www.reason.com/0505/fe.dm.demolishing.shtml )


Thats fine, however, we at the NS Classic Liberals are opposed to government subsidies to business in any way. Read our manifesto. Its a sham that the American Taxpayers pay for sports stadiums and the like. In Britain, they do not, clubs and teams fund their own stadiums. The only stadium with government money is the national one.

By all means read their manifesto, i encourage it. See that you will be forced to do jobs against your will, jobs that noone wants to do, like cleaning toilets and digging ditches for 2 week periods or more.

See also that if some professions are needed, aka surgeons, they will be exempt from those jobs.

Kind of screws over their "Everyone is equal under Communism" argument doesn't it?

This point has always been addressed, repeatedly. Our aim is to foster a sense of community, where people will be willing to help their fellow human beings, and will help enable society to function, for the benefit of all.

And is it not better to work in "menial" tasks a short while, than live in a capitalist society that will trap you in such jobs for your entire life? All the more so considering that, under communism as we offer it, such work will be carried out in groups, with emphasis laid on working together, and every effort made to make those short periods of "menial" work as pleasant as possible. Under capitalism, no-one will care about your work being degrading, unpleasant, unhealthy or even dangerous. Because under capitalism, you will be treated as an item of ressource to be squeezed and exploited to the maximum for profit, and not as a human being.

Finally, note that the capitalists are evading the issue of poverty. Read our manifesto, and find out why there will be no poverty in a communist society.

In the society we propose, there will be no poverty, because there will be no money. Our opponents know this, but still they tell you untruths because they are hoping you will not have read our manifesto.

Find out the truth for yourself. Do not be swayed by propaganda. Read our manifesto (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=418610).



Um poverty is easy to cure then. If poverty is to do with money (as is implied) then we cure it by making everyone poor. Doing away with money does not do away with hunger, does not do away with being homeless, does not do away with not having the medicines needed. Fine get rid of money, then you can say look, you are not poor, no one has more money than you.

What does eliminating money mean. It means that if you want something you have to either beg for it, or trade some other goods or services for it. If it is trading then you do not eliminate the havews and have nots, so they want to turn the nation into a nation of beggars.

Read their manifesto it is all there.

And if you vote for the DSP you are voting for this load of idealistic nonsense as well, given that DSP's founder is a member of UDCP and they are just a misleading cover to obtain votes under false pretences.

http://spaam.cheekysod.com/dsp1.jpg

Finally, note that the capitalists are evading the issue of poverty. Read our manifesto, and find out why there will be no poverty in a communist society.

Since when? We have talked about it and mentioned the fact that a lot of use were born in poverty or poor and worked our way up from it. We do not avoid the issue, we just ignore the mindless accusations thrown at us that poverty only exists under capitalism.

Um poverty is easy to cure then. If poverty is to do with money (as is implied) then we cure it by making everyone poor. Doing away with money does not do away with hunger, does not do away with being homeless, does not do away with not having the medicines needed. Fine get rid of money, then you can say look, you are not poor, no one has more money than you.

What does eliminating money mean. It means that if you want something you have to either beg for it, or trade some other goods or services for it. If it is trading then you do not eliminate the havews and have nots, so they want to turn the nation into a nation of beggars.

Read their manifesto it is all there.

And if you vote for the DSP you are voting for this load of idealistic nonsense as well, given that DSP's founder is a member of UDCP and they are just a misleading cover to obtain votes under false pretences.
Absolute BS.

DSP is for helping your fellow person. Classic Liberals is for helping yourself.

Selfless vs Selfish.

Think about it...

They can't be "shining examples" of supply and demand. "Professional" sports is too busy taking huge amounts of government welfare and pork and stealing people's property via eminent domain.

"From 1990 to 2003 there were 66 major construction and renovation projects for professional sports stadiums and arenas in the U.S., costing $17.3 billion, according to the League of Fans, a sports welfare watchdog group founded by Ralph Nader. Sixty percent of the funding, or an estimated $10.3 billion, came from the public purse. ... Sports owners have long used eminent domain as a way to acquire property cheaply. Sports economists estimate that half of the post-1990 stadium and arena construction has involved eminent domain—and even when it wasn’t invoked, it was understood that condemnation could be a last resort if the teams encountered stubborn landowners."
-- Demolishing Sports Welfare by Daniel McGraw ( http://www.reason.com/0505/fe.dm.demolishing.shtml )


As your side is so keen on saying Read the manifesto (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=418625) . This argument would work against the DSP or COTP as they are pro goverment subsidies and interference in entertainment, but not against the Classic Liberals.

The ONLY role the government shall have in business is to enfrorce agreed contracts

http://armageddonproject.com/ftpdrop/nsclassicliberal2.jpg

http://armageddonproject.com/ftpdrop/nsclassicliberal8.jpg

VOTE NS CLASSIC LIBERAL - WE WILL FIGHT FOR YOUR FREEDOMS

Absolute BS.

DSP is for helping your fellow person. Classic Liberals is for helping yourself.

Selfless vs Selfish.

Think about it...

Selfless: - the self with less
Selfish: - The motivation to achieve and contribute to society.

Guess what I have thought about it. Have you? It appears not.

Oh and Spaam, why is the odd one, your founder, a member of UDCP? Why are you planning alliances with outright communists when your manifesto starts of opposing communism. Why is your party trying to decieve the public?

http://armageddonproject.com/ftpdrop/nsclassicliberal1.jpg

Selfless: - the self with less
Selfish: - The motivation to achieve and contribute to society.

Guess what I have thought about it. Have you? It appears not.

Oh and Spaam, why is the odd one, your founder, a member of UDCP? Why are you planning alliances with outright communists when your manifesto starts of opposing communism. Why is your party trying to decieve the public?
You are an idiot...

Selfless = making sure children don't die hungry on the streets.
Selfish DOES NOT contribute to society. Selfish DOES NOT care about children dying hungry on the street.

You haven't thought about it, you have merely tried to turn the words around to make you look good, and poorly at that.

As for the founder being a member of UDCP, so what? Doesn't mean we are. Our party is not about deceiving anyone. That is your job.

As your side is so keen on saying Read the manifesto (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=418625) .


My side? Please, enlighten me as to which side is "my" side? :)

So you want to fire people. You want to be a domineering control freak, but then we knew that anyway.

If you want freedom from such authoritarian ideals, vote for your right to decide

Read the banner again, you might need to practice your English.

http://armageddonproject.com/ftpdrop/nsclassicliberal1.jpg
As long as you are rich. Otherwise you're just screwed, buddy.

You are an idiot...

Selfless = making sure children don't die hungry on the streets.
Selfish DOES NOT contribute to society. Selfish DOES NOT care about children dying hungry on the street.

You haven't thought about it, you have merely tried to turn the words around to make you look good, and poorly at that.

As for the founder being a member of UDCP, so what? Doesn't mean we are. Our party is not about deceiving anyone. That is your job.

Thanks for the flame. This shows the level of intelligent debate you are capable of. Keep it up.

Selfless does literally mean the self with less, are you denying that. Are you arguing that under a socialist/communist regime the people will have more, be better off, that the government can do such a much better job of deciding their needs than they can themselves. Well yes I suppose you are, that is why you are a socialist. I just happen to think that the individual is in a much better position to decide what is good and what is bad than the government is. This is called freedom of choice, what you want is freedom from choice.

Let me examine the claim that selfishness means not contributing to society.
Point one: being selfish means acting as you, yourself see fit, as you choose to. At least that is what you have implied.
Point two: the socialist program is based on the ideal that we as humans are altruistic, that we care about the other.
Point three: Combine points one and two and you gert being selfish as acting altruistically, if your view of human nature is correct.
Point four: you say that being selfish means not acting altruistically.

This is a contradiction, so one of your opinions is wrong. Which one do you want to throw out?

You can not throw out one, it is an agreed point.

If you throw out point two then you throw out all the reason you have for anyone to vote socialist, so it has to stay

Point three is just a logical conclusion, it can not be discarded without discarding logic (which is what the socialists normally do) or one of points one or two

Point four is your argument against us, throw it out if you want.


Can you not see that your leader being a member of a party that he explicitly refutes the thinking of, makes the whole party suspect. I guess not, but I think the voters should be aware of this conflict of interests, before they vote for you.

My side? Please, enlighten me as to which side is "my" side? :)

Economic left wing :) , or did I miss something in your posts. They were all sarcastic?

Read the banner again, you might need to practice your English.

Nah, just needed to put my glasses on :(

Um poverty is easy to cure then. If poverty is to do with money (as is implied) then we cure it by making everyone poor. Doing away with money does not do away with hunger, does not do away with being homeless, does not do away with not having the medicines needed. Fine get rid of money, then you can say look, you are not poor, no one has more money than you.

What does eliminating money mean. It means that if you want something you have to either beg for it, or trade some other goods or services for it. If it is trading then you do not eliminate the havews and have nots, so they want to turn the nation into a nation of beggars.

Read their manifesto it is all there.

It is all there indeed. We do not advocate eliminating money as being somehow a cure-all. It is to be implemented in combination with a radically new form of society, which will ensure that everyone has all they need, and that the drive for profit, being eliminated, is no longer there to be enthroned as superior to the right to decent living conditions.


And if you vote for the DSP you are voting for this load of idealistic nonsense as well, given that DSP's founder is a member of UDCP and they are just a misleading cover to obtain votes under false pretences.

Wrong. The Odd One, founder of the DSP, was originally a member of the UDCP. He broke away from our party because he disagreed with our policies, and therefore created the DSP.

http://armageddonproject.com/ftpdrop/nsclassicliberal2.jpg

http://armageddonproject.com/ftpdrop/nsclassicliberal8.jpg

VOTE NS CLASSIC LIBERAL - WE WILL FIGHT FOR YOUR FREEDOMS

Don't vote for the DSP, they have allied themselves with the communists despite proclaiming that they are against communism in their manifesto

As long as you are rich. Otherwise you're just screwed, buddy.

Not so. We give you the power to decide, to do as you feel fit with the few resources you have if you are poor. We support your education, we provide the conditions for success.

If you are poor in the socialist world what do you get? Some handouts and most of your assets taken away to feed the government beast. Would it not be better for you to decide for yourself what you want to spend those assets on. After all you knopw what you need you know what you want, you know your priorities.

Do you want to spend your money on indoctrinating kids into thinking that there are no winners or losers, Do you want to spend your money on the holidays of those who do not make any effort for themselves. No? Then vote NSCL and take the power of decision back.

I've decided to throw my lot in with the Classic Libs. They know what is best for the economy and will improve profits for businesses.

http://img291.echo.cx/img291/4391/propaganda2pd.jpg

Do I make good propaganda? :)

Read the manifesto (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=418625)

Items 6 and 8, under the section "Constitutional Principles," limiting the ability to vote for some offices to a "limited educated suffrage," are unacceptable. The ability to choose one's government is a fundamental human right that extends to all human beings. This right is not granted based on some arbitrary level of "education," but is demanded by the free individual as a condition of his submitting himself to government authority. Limiting the ability to vote for these offices to a special class is not liberalism, but oligarchy.

Additionally, I submit that the proper liberal position in regards to abortion is one of opposition, a position arrived at by extending the traditional liberal values of individual liberty and exclusive ownership of one's own body to their logical conclusions, regardless of one's age of state of physical development. At the very least, a person who does not belong to the "limited educated suffrage" can get an education and thus "earn" the right to vote. Denying a human being his rights because of characteristics that he cannot control, like his age or state of physical development, however, is especially harsh and especially unliberal.

It is all there indeed. We do not advocate eliminating money as being somehow a cure-all. It is to be implemented in combination with a radically new form of society, which will ensure that everyone has all they need, and that the drive for profit, being eliminated, is no longer there to be enthroned as superior to the right to decent living conditions.
Money is just an economic tool, agreed.

Ever heard of the saying "A poor workman blames his tools"

Draw your own conclusion



Wrong. The Odd One, founder of the DSP, was originally a member of the UDCP. He broke away from our party because he disagreed with our policies, and therefore created the DSP.

In that case why is he listed on your membership list (http://udcp.11.forumer.com/viewtopic.php?t=12) ?

And with 601 votes cast, this is what Parliament would look like:

COTP: 2.54 seats => 3 seats
DSP: 4.54 seats => 5 seats
MOBRA: 0.998 seat => 0 seat
NSCL: 4.74 seats => 5 seats
MRR: 2.41 seats => 2 seats
Party of Order: 0.71 seat => 0 seat
PWW: 2.12 seats => 2 seats
RTP: 0.998 seat => 0 seat
UDCP: 2.83 seats => 3 seats
"Up yours!" Party: 3.12 seats => 3 seats

Which gives us 23 seats. If we round up the two closest, that gives MOBRA and the RTP one seat each, with the Party of Order having no seat... for a total of 25 seats.

Do I make good propaganda? :)

Not really. Why don't you compare us to Hitler or something, that always works. Or call us fascists.

*bows*

Good work with all the banners, by the way! :)
why thank you :)


By all means read their manifesto, i encourage it. See that you will be forced to do jobs against your will, jobs that noone wants to do, like cleaning toilets and digging ditches for 2 week periods or more.

better than capitalism where some are forced to do these undesirable jobs FOR A LIVING just in order to survive, while others who are born into greater prosperity don't even have to think about these jobs.

"labouring to survive is the work of animals"


This point has always been addressed, repeatedly. Our aim is to foster a sense of community, where people will be willing to help their fellow human beings, and will help enable society to function, for the benefit of all.

And is it not better to work in "menial" tasks a short while, than live in a capitalist society that will trap you in such jobs for your entire life? All the more so considering that, under communism as we offer it, such work will be carried out in groups, with emphasis laid on working together, and every effort made to make those short periods of "menial" work as pleasant as possible. Under capitalism, no-one will care about your work being degrading, unpleasant, unhealthy or even dangerous. Because under capitalism, you will be treated as an item of ressource to be squeezed and exploited to the maximum for profit, and not as a human being.

Finally, note that the capitalists are evading the issue of poverty. Read our manifesto, and find out why there will be no poverty in a communist society.
*claps again*

I've decided to throw my lot in with the Classic Libs. They know what is best for the economy and will improve profits for businesses.

http://img291.echo.cx/img291/4391/propaganda2pd.jpg

Do I make good propaganda? :)
lmao awesome :p



In that case why is he listed on your membership list (http://udcp.11.forumer.com/viewtopic.php?t=12) ?
because a) i'm a lazy sod and haven't updated that OP in a week or more, and b) because he never specifically asked to be taken off the list.

i mean i'm a member of the COTP, and i've participated in a couple of (the shorter) discussions in the DSP too. where is it in the rules you can't belong to more than 1 party?

Thanks for the flame. This shows the level of intelligent debate you are capable of. Keep it up.
Sorry. I should've said you comments were idiotic :p

Selfless does literally mean the self with less, are you denying that. Are you arguing that under a socialist/communist regime the people will have more, be better off, that the government can do such a much better job of deciding their needs than they can themselves. Well yes I suppose you are, that is why you are a socialist. I just happen to think that the individual is in a much better position to decide what is good and what is bad than the government is. This is called freedom of choice, what you want is freedom from choice.
self·less
adj.

Having, exhibiting, or motivated by no concern for oneself; unselfish:

Yes, I deny that selfless means the self with less. Selfless means not concerned about the self. It is the opposite of selfish. Now, as for Democratic Socialists, we believe that the people should choose how the government acts in an altruistic manner. We don't believe that we should decided their needs per se. We just believe that we should make sure that the greedy people do not screw the poor. We believe there is a difference between freedom of choice, and plain selfish greed. We don't believe that all individuals are in a good position to decided what is good and bad.

Let me examine the claim that selfishness means not contributing to society.
Point one: being selfish means acting as you, yourself see fit, as you choose to. At least that is what you have implied.
Point two: the socialist program is based on the ideal that we as humans are altruistic, that we care about the other.
Point three: Combine points one and two and you gert being selfish as acting altruistically, if your view of human nature is correct.
Point four: you say that being selfish means not acting altruistically.

Actually, selfish means acting with concern for yourself only. That is what I mean by point one.
Point two is based on the ideal that we as humans SHOULD be altruistic. Its reality that we aren't all that way.
Point three is thus wrong. Very wrong.
Point four is still right.

This is a contradiction, so one of your opinions is wrong. Which one do you want to throw out?

You can not throw out one, it is an agreed point.

If you throw out point two then you throw out all the reason you have for anyone to vote socialist, so it has to stay

Point three is just a logical conclusion, it can not be discarded without discarding logic (which is what the socialists normally do) or one of points one or two

Point four is your argument against us, throw it out if you want.

So one is not agreed, two is not quite right, three is based on false premises, and only four is correct.

Can you not see that your leader being a member of a party that he explicitly refutes the thinking of, makes the whole party suspect. I guess not, but I think the voters should be aware of this conflict of interests, before they vote for you.
Founder or leader? Make a choice.
Besides, the actions of one does not determine the actions of many. You're making assumptions.

Economic left wing :)

I believe my most recent Political Compass quiz results were something like - Social: -5.59 Economic: 0.38. My most recent Moral Politics quiz results where around Moral Rules: -7 Moral Order: -.5. Something like that. A solid individualist and social libertarian, who essentially doesn't trust the Right anymore than the trusts the Left (edit: as the goal of each seems to be to deprive me of my individuality).

"labouring to survive is the work of animals"


Ooh, guess what? Humans are animals.

Or do you suppose you can have a system where not only do you never involve yourself with the production of food or anything else, but NO ONE does? Gosh that'd be nice, everyone just sitting around on their asses while non-humans do all the labour.

Too bad the real world doesn't work like that.


Finally, note that the capitalists are evading the issue of poverty. Read our manifesto, and find out why there will be no poverty in a communist society.

Oh, well if it's in your MANIFESTO, it MUST be true! In *my* manifesto, all humans are given godlike powers to bend things with their mind!!! OMG!

Not really. Why don't you compare us to Hitler or something, that always works. Or call us fascists.

Yes, because everyone on the left is a moron and believes that small-government uber-capitalists must be the same as totalitarian psuedo-capitalists. :rolleyes:

Items 6 and 8, under the section "Constitutional Principles," limiting the ability to vote for some offices to a "limited educated suffrage," are unacceptable. The ability to choose one's government is a fundamental human right that extends to all human beings. This right is not granted based on some arbitrary level of "education," but is demanded by the free individual as a condition of his submitting himself to government authority. Limiting the ability to vote for these offices to a special class is not liberalism, but oligarchy.

Go back and read again. The suffrage for election of the legislature is universal. There are two other groups directly elected in our system which are often appointed.

Firstly the judiciary: These are elected by people with enough education to realy know and understand the law, but not just lawyers or judges themselves. This is extending the suffrage for this over what is normal in most countries.

Secondly an advisory body constituted of experts in their field. This has no legislative power, it is simply a body of knowledgeable people to advise on legislaton. This body has its representatives selected by those qulaified to decide if they are an expert or not, ie. those in the field.

Additionally, I submit that the proper liberal position in regards to abortion is one of opposition, a position arrived at by extending the traditional liberal values of individual liberty and exclusive ownership of one's own body to their logical conclusions, regardless of one's age of state of physical development. At the very least, a person who does not belong to the "limited educated suffrage" can get an education and thus "earn" the right to vote. Denying a human being his rights because of characteristics that he cannot control, like his age or state of physical development, however, is especially harsh and especially unliberal.

There are two human beings involved in pregnancy, and as such extending this thinking to the limit does not resolve the question. There is therefor reason to be pro choice as the decision as to whether the fetus is a human or not with rights to be considered has to be a personal one, and not a matter for government interference. Abortion is not compulsory you know.

There is no limited suffrage for the government. Go and read again.

Yes, because everyone on the left is a moron and believes that small-government uber-capitalists must be the same as totalitarian psuedo-capitalists. :rolleyes:

Hey, you said it, not me.

And just look how many times Dhomme cranks out those "fascist" labels.

I believe my most recent Political Compass quiz results were something like - Social: -5.59 Economic: 0.38. My most recent Moral Politics quiz results where around Moral Rules: -7 Moral Order: -.5. Something like that. A solid individualist and social libertarian, who essentially doesn't trust the Right anymore than the trusts the Left (edit: as the goal of each seems to be to deprive me of my individuality).


Our goal is to allow you the maximum freedom to be yourself. Please accept my apologies if I insulted you, it was not intended, just the points you were making that I replied to were typical of the economic left.

Hey, you said it, not me.

And just look how many times Dhomme cranks out those "fascist" labels.

I'm quite certain i'm not Dhomme, though :p

I'm quite certain i'm not Dhomme, though :p

*gazes intensely*

Hmm, you're right. :p

Still, your propaganda makes us out to be nearly Hitlerlike. And on the internet, there's no more potent argument than comparing the opponent to Hitler/the Nazis! Seriously, you should consider it. Plus swastikas are easily drawn, easily recognizable, and they're funny.

Our goal is to allow you the maximum freedom to be yourself. Please accept my apologies if I insulted you, it was not intended, just the points you were making that I replied to were typical of the economic left.
Assuming you have money that is...

http://img92.echo.cx/img92/6455/anticommunistposter0bg.png

Hey, you said it, not me.

And just look how many times Dhomme cranks out those "fascist" labels.
That sounds like something a fash might say

Assuming you have money that is...

Not the case. Another baseless accusation :rolleyes:

Still, your propaganda makes us out to be nearly Hitlerlike.

Well, not as such. I mean, Nazi Germany did have a social welfare system. :p

In seriousness though, your proposed society isn't maliciously geared at causing suffering, I recognise that...

But a lot of the things that classic liberals propose to do away with (environmental protection laws, free education, etc., etc.,) will have that effect. You'll only have inflluence in a society like that if you already have an established and successful business. Everyone else serves the unwitting role of keeping these people elevated above them, unfortunately.

And on the internet, there's no more potent argument than comparing the opponent to Hitler/the Nazis! Seriously, you should consider it. Plus swastikas are easily drawn, easily recognizable, and they're funny.

I wasn't keen on invoking Godwin's law :p

Our goal is to allow you the maximum freedom to be yourself. Please accept my apologies if I insulted you, it was not intended, just the points you were making that I replied to were typical of the economic left.

:D

Critisizing "professional" athletes and sports for exploiting the taxpayers via huge amounts of subsidy and welfare and by stealing property via eminent domain is certainly something one might expect from the "economic left" (in fact, there is an article about it in the copy of Mother Jones magazine I have right here). On the other hand it's also something one might expect from the lassiez-faire capitalist crowd as well (the article my post linked to is from Reason Magazine, an American libertarian-oriented publication). That the article I quoted specifically mentions Ralph Nader might throw some people off, but then even one's opponent is capable of speaking truth occasionally.

Not the case. Another baseless accusation :rolleyes:
Oh wow. And the smiley just strengthens your case so much.

You see, it is NOT a baseless accusation. It IS the case.
If you do not have enough money, you will not have freedom.
True freedom will only be reached if you have enough money.

Please, try and argue against it.
Because just dismissing it like that is both stupid and well... no, its only stupid.

Not the case. Another baseless accusation :rolleyes:

Why is that baseless? If you don't have money, you cannot exercise your right to own a business. With the abolition of things such as the minimum wage and social security, people are going to be spending all of their money on maintaining their standard of living. There won't be any means to improve the day-to-day quality of life, except for those who already hold vast amounts of capital.

Great. MOBRA's beating us. Says something about people doesn't it?

http://img164.echo.cx/img164/1472/greetings6pp.jpg

Great. MOBRA's beating us. Says something about people doesn't it?

Probably not wise to insult the voters. Maybe it is to do with your name and/or your parties manifesto/views.

Also probably due to competition from the UDCP and DSP

i know its ad hominem and all, but you're a selfish little bastard aren't you?2 entries found for dieing (note the spelling asshole)Knock off the personal attacks.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation

Knock off the personal attacks.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
ok

Oh wow. And the smiley just strengthens your case so much.

You see, it is NOT a baseless accusation. It IS the case.
If you do not have enough money, you will not have freedom.
True freedom will only be reached if you have enough money.

Please, try and argue against it.
Because just dismissing it like that is both stupid and well... no, its only stupid.
I will repeat this for those who insist on advancing the ridiculous notion that the poor do not have opportunities simply because they are poor.
Also, what really gets my goat are you people that truly believe that poor people are stuck in their circumstances and cannot change them. That they are born without opportunity. I can tell you from firsthand experience that idea is horseshit.

I grew up dirt poor...and I mean DIRT poor. I lived in the middle of the sticks. I had no father growing up (they divorced when I was 5). My mother fed me, my sister and herself on $15 a week.

I worked my ass off and made sure I educated myself in order to do better in life. No one in my family has ever taken an handout from anyone and I've never felt entitled to anything because I was born a "poor hick redneck".

I am living proof that ANYONE has the opportunity to do better if they just get off their lazy fucking ass and WORK for it.
I will never EVER believe your bullshit rhetoric when I KNOW the opposite is true.

I have general question. what will happened in the votes that don't get to 4% (as 15.5% which give 3 seats and 3.5% 0r 2% which is nothing)?

The percentages will be rounded... so anyone under 2% will not get a seat. 2-6% will get a party one seat, and so forth.

If there are any seats left over, then the party that was closest to getting a seat will get it. If there are not enough seats, then the party with the most tenuous grasp of their seat will lose one.

The percentages will be rounded... so anyone under 2% will not get a seat. 2-6% will get a party one seat, and so forth.

If there are any seats left over, then the party that was closest to getting a seat will get it. If there are not enough seats, then the party with the most tenuous grasp of their seat will lose one.
ok, I just know other real life system that include agreements of small parties to give percents to bigger party with similar opinions if they can't get a seat. this system ensure that votes for left parties will stay at the left, and the opposite.

I have to say I'm very, very amused that MOBRA is beating the RTP.

Green israel: Yeah, that's called making a coalition. Because parties need the support of at least 50% of parliament, if no one gets above that number then some parties need to join together to form a ruling body.

And you're right, it is usually ideologically similar parties that join together. In this case though, even though the left overall have slightly more support than the right, neither has 50%, so they will probably have to join up with a centre party, or even a joke party. And even though the NS Classic Liberals will be the largest party they probably won't have enough right-wing support to form a ruling coalition

That's the downside to PR, folks.

By the way, Vote Classic Liberal.


Melkor: Maybe people have worked out that they don't have to elect someone who does there thinking for them.

By the way, Vote Classic Liberal.

Indeed. You see, Silver Nebulae knows whats right. :p

Green israel: Yeah, that's called making a coalition. Because parties need the support of at least 50% of parliament, if no one gets above that number then some parties need to join together to form a ruling body.

And you're right, it is usually ideologically similar parties that join together. In this case though, even though the left overall have slightly more support than the right, neither has 50%, so they will probably have to join up with a centre party, or even a joke party. And even though the NS Classic Liberals will be the largest party they probably won't have enough right-wing support to form a ruling coalition.
I talked about something different. suppose party get 2.5% of the votes and didn't reach the parlament. if she had former agreement with NS classical liberals for example, all those voices will go to the cllasical liberals and give them more seat with the additional voices they had. if there is high minimum percent this system will help the big parties.
coalition is similar thing but it dosen't move votes between parties or connected to former agreements.

Wait... that's not a coalition how?

It's not a coalition, because instead of sharing power, the party without a seat gives its votes to an ideologically-similar party, to ensure its electors are represented.

It seems to me to be a very suspect way of manipulating what people originally voted for.

We need more party members

What party? If you're not a bunch of lefties I'll join. :p

I have to say I'm very, very amused that MOBRA is beating the RTP.
I think its justification for their posters and policies. I find it very amusing, they insulted the voters earlier about the fact they had less votes than MOBRA.

The percentages will be rounded... so anyone under 2% will not get a seat. 2-6% will get a party one seat, and so forth.



What about the 4% quorum for a party to get a seat? If parties are going to try and make coalitions I can imagine small parties, getting a seat on a very low percentage of the vote, holding unreasonable amounts of power.

Wait... that's not a coalition how?

That is actually vote transfer, which I am opposed to. The voter voted for one party, not for that party or some other which they choose to ally with. If you want transferable votes it would have to be a much more complex poll with each voter declaring their second, third and fourth options etc. Not practical on this forum.

Coalition is agreement between various parties to act together to form a government. It has no effect on the vote count.

Probably not wise to insult the voters. Maybe it is to do with your name and/or your parties manifesto/views.

Also probably due to competition from the UDCP and DSP
We wouldnt take view, I just think that we are quite an extremist party so we'll get a minority of voters. Generally speaking revolutionary activites are declining in the west and most people on this board are from europe or the US.

I'm not insulting the voters, just people who take politics as a joke

I think its justification for their posters and policies. I find it very amusing, they insulted the voters earlier about the fact they had less votes than MOBRA.
I guess their idea of revolution wasn't very attractive to the voters.

What about the 4% quorum for a party to get a seat? If parties are going to try and make coalitions I can imagine small parties, getting a seat on a very low percentage of the vote, holding unreasonable amounts of power.
Exactly, however i think the balance of power will lie with the PoWW who say they will not join a coalition but will be the power deciders as they are quite centrist

I just think that we are quite an extremist party so we'll get a minority of voters.
indeed.

the UDCP is quite extreme in the changes we want to bring in, so again its not suprising we are #4 or 5 at the mo. then again 3 seats isn't bad at all

We wouldnt take view, I just think that we are quite an extremist party so we'll get a minority of voters. Generally speaking revolutionary activites are declining in the west and most people on this board are from europe or the US.

I'm not insulting the voters, just people who take politics as a joke

Thats a fair enough point.

http://armageddonproject.com/ftpdrop/nsclassicliberal2.jpg

http://armageddonproject.com/ftpdrop/nsclassicliberal8.jpg

VOTE NS CLASSIC LIBERAL - WE WILL FIGHT FOR YOUR FREEDOMS

I grew up dirt poor...and I mean DIRT poor. I lived in the middle of the sticks. I had no father growing up (they divorced when I was 5). My mother fed me, my sister and herself on $15 a week.

I worked my ass off and made sure I educated myself in order to do better in life. No one in my family has ever taken an handout from anyone and I've never felt entitled to anything because I was born a "poor hick redneck".

I am living proof that ANYONE has the opportunity to do better if they just get off their lazy fucking ass and WORK for it.
You are to be commended! [ applauds ]

However, you do recognize, do you not, that not everyone has the same drive and determination you obviously have. This is one of the major reasons POWW advocates significant assistance for those seeking better educational opportunities:

9. Education. We advocate the establishment of a national council on education, to include representatives from all walks of life, which will be responsible for establishing minimal educational standards for teachers and curricula nationwide. We also advocate the imposition of severe penalties for failure on the part of local educational and governmental organizations to maintain these minimal educational standards, up to and including substantial fines and jail terms, as well as substantial financial and other rewards for those who use creative and effective means of furthering education below the college level. We also advocate substantial financial aid for college students based upon family income and asset levels.

We wouldnt take view, I just think that we are quite an extremist party so we'll get a minority of voters. Generally speaking revolutionary activites are declining in the west and most people on this board are from europe or the US.

I'm not insulting the voters, just people who take politics as a joke
It may not be the fact that your'e revolutionary, but that you're Trotskyite. If it were Stalin, then that would be another story entirely.

At the moment if the following parties were to form a coalition then we would have a libertarian-centrist ruling body, which is what everyone really wants, right?

NS Classic Liberals: 18.82% - 5 seats
"Up Yours!" Party: 12.28% - 3 seats
NS Meritocratic Representative Republicans: 9.89% - 2 seats
Party of Whatever Works: 8.45% - 2 seats
Mole and Other Borrowing Rodents' Alliance: 3.99% - 1 seat
Party of Order: 2.87% - 1 seat

Yeah, that's a very tenuously-linked group of parties, but that's how it's got to be. That would be 14 seats, giving a 56% share of parliament, more than enough to control things. It would have the support of 56.3% of voters, so all's fair, and there would be no Communists. :cool:

Seems like every party is getting at least one seat and the top two parties four/five seats each.

You are to be commended! [ applauds ]

However, you do recognize, do you not, that not everyone has the same drive and determination you obviously have. This is one of the major reasons POWW advocates significant assistance for those seeking better educational opportunities:

The NSCL party also recognizes the variation in individual drive and determination. We too make provision for those that have the desire to better their position to obtain the education necessary. Please do not assume that the Classic Liberals are an out and out free market rules all position.

Education
Free basic education (6 to 12) provided for all children as this is of utility to society. Low interest loans provided for furthered education. The government shall have no control not influence on the educational curriculum for those aged 12 or above. This shall be the free choice of the institution. The parents and or children shall be free to choose which institution they desire to attend, including the option of none.

We support education but we do not require it beyond a basic level. It is your choice, your decision. If you believe that you will do better in life through apprenticeship in a trade rather than a formal education, then this is open to you. If however you wish to be an academic, but come from a poor background, this too is possible.

Choose for yourself, don't have it chosen for you. Vote Classic Liberal

We wouldnt take view, I just think that we are quite an extremist party so we'll get a minority of voters. Generally speaking revolutionary activites are declining in the west and most people on this board are from europe or the US.

I'm not insulting the voters, just people who take politics as a joke
That really doesn't wash. We're (NSCL) pretty extreme in our views. We're pro-extreme-freedom, and yet we lead (even if my a narrow margin) the polls.

It's not extremism...it's your FORM of extremism. (This goes for UDCP as well as RTP.)

The Mole men are beating RTP. That is too great. :D

Anyway,

http://img75.echo.cx/img75/8338/altruisticposter8mb.png

http://img156.echo.cx/img156/355/posterblue6uz.png

The DSP has slipped below 18% of the vote. Taking them down to below 4.5 seats.

This means that they not get 5 seats and may only get 4. :D

Seems you Classic Liberals have a conflict. I see Alien Born playing down your extremist side, and in the next post Texpunditistan saying that you're very extremist. Which is it? I support you guys, but conflicting messages one after the other make me uneasy.

http://www.hlj.me.uk/UDCP%205.jpg



Seems you Classic Liberals have a conflict. I see Alien Born playing down your extremist side, and in the next post Texpunditistan saying that you're very extremist. Which is it? I support you guys, but conflicting messages one after the other make me uneasy.
ah you right-wingers are all extremists from where i stand... extremely WRONG that is! hahahahahhaa!!

oh i crack myself up ;)

Seems you Classic Liberals have a conflict. I see Alien Born playing down your extremist side, and in the next post Texpunditistan saying that you're very extremist. Which is it? I support you guys, but conflicting messages one after the other make me uneasy.
That's kind of like the "potato/potatoe" argument. I was just making a point. And, to be honest... we're both kind of right in or views of our party. ;)

I've got a new one. :D

http://armageddonproject.com/ftpdrop/nsclassicliberal9.jpg

I've got a new one. :D

GREAT POSTER

I like it. A lot. :D

Seems you Classic Liberals have a conflict. I see Alien Born playing down your extremist side, and in the next post Texpunditistan saying that you're very extremist. Which is it? I support you guys, but conflicting messages one after the other make me uneasy.
Welcome to the wonderful world of politics!

The POWW advocates a rational approach to politics, something which definitely seems to be in short supply. ;)

Damn wishy washy liberals! If the main left-wing parties (Trotskyist, Democratic Communist and the others) were to merge as a united front...they would have defeated the pro-capitalist lickspittles. As it is, the left fails to unite at a critical time (just like 1933 Germany). :headbang:

Seems you Classic Liberals have a conflict. I see Alien Born playing down your extremist side, and in the next post Texpunditistan saying that you're very extremist. Which is it? I support you guys, but conflicting messages one after the other make me uneasy.

There are two, or maybe three axes of evaluation. I was emphasising that we are not an extreme right party, whill Tex was emphasising that we have extreme support for personal liberty. If you read my post on education, for example you will see that extremism of that type is present. We allow the individual to choose, the school curricula are not regulated after 12 etc., but a free market rules in all things attitude is not part of our policy. We are not extreme capitalists, we are extreme liberals.

No conflict at all, just looking from different angles.

Damn wishy washy liberals! If the main left-wing parties (Trotskyist, Democratic Communist and the others) were to merge as a united front...they would have defeated the pro-capitalist lickspittles. As it is, the left fails to unite at a critical time (just like 1933 Germany). :headbang:
Thats not true, if they were just one party they would most likely get less votes. They can spread about their support by having different left wing views then try and form a left wing coalition, only its not working. :p

Damn wishy washy liberals! If the main left-wing parties (Trotskyist, Democratic Communist and the others) were to merge as a united front...they would have defeated the pro-capitalist lickspittles. As it is, the left fails to unite at a critical time (just like 1933 Germany). :headbang:

Dont call us liberals. We object to that title. Also, as trotskyists, we cannot align with a non class conscious party (eg DSP) as it would be forming a popular front which is a Stalinist tactic

Comrade! Brother in arms! I was not calling you a liberal. I was annoyed that the 'Classic Liberals' were winning the election.

A united front with Stalinists is sometimes necessary...we would not be aligning with bourgeois forces...we would be working with other workers (albeit Stalinised workers!).