As someone on the left who is obsessed with watching/listening to people before and after the 2016 election... I truly think this is a myth. I don’t support Donald trump but you would have to be a moron to think that the establishment didn’t want him.
I think it was absolutely true in Carlin's time, and pretty much up until 2016, when both Sanders and Trump did way better than they were ever "supposed" to. Then, those unexpected successes put the political establishment into panic mode. Remains to be seen whether all their manoeuvring since then to clamp down on social and independent media and bring back McCarthyism will render 2016's populist uprising nothing but a blip, or if it's an irreversible trend.
Also, it's worth noting that Trump's election hasn't actually changed all that much yet. They did everything they could to rein him in. So even with his unexpected victory, I'm still not so sure it will have "mattered" from the viewpoint of his right-wing populist supporters who wanted him based on how he differed from other Republicans.
His SOTU could of been done by Jeb or Marco. It was the typical republican “America is good” speech. I’ll agree with you there.
While I don’t think that the populist movements are going to be something in the wind. I think the TRUE left are very active along with the “alt right/alt lite/what have you”. Trump and Bernie spoke to people.
We live in an era where everyone is treated they are still in elementary school. Your boss can call you in and punish you just like the principle. You call your tech customer service provider and the infatuate you like a child. Bernie and trump were the grandpas that told you what the fuck was up. I still think it resonates with people, and as long as the depression we are living in gets worse and worse, people will be pushed to the far right or the far left.
Living in South Carolina and watching every Republican primary for 30+ years I knew something was off script when Jeb Bush came here and couldn't pull in more than a dozen people at a rally.
Meanwhile Trump is packing out arenas.
The folks in the state GOP establishment I talked to were in an ABSOLUTE panic.
Trump is out there talking about Bush lying about Iraq and the 911 stuff. I could not believe he was getting away with it. People were truly fed up with the Bushes establishment etc..
It was one of the few if not only organic grass roots political swing I have ever seen.
Saying all that am I declaring Trump is not controlled opposition. Of course not. I do think it was supposed to be Jeb Bush vs Hillary with a Hillary victory.
maybe he could prosecute Clinton, Obama, Bush? after all the Wikileaks info and "lock her up" chants he campaigned on.. when he said he wouldn't do that after he won it was clear without doubt that he has no real interest in fighting the establishment or holding people in power accountable.. that could open doors noone in power wants to open
Why did he say he would look into SA ties to 911 (15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis....that would make sense) but instead have his first international visit to dance with their king in his headdress and longrobes and offer them 110 billion in arms?
The establishment have gotten their tax cuts. They are perfectly happy and dont care about anything else. Because of it there will soon be a budget crisis and gov spending and taxes will be cut even more. Everything is going to plan.
I don’t support Donald trump but you would have to be a moron to think that the establishment didn’t want him.
So.. what you're saying is that the vote didn't really matter, because there was an establishment candidate on both sides of the ballot?
Are you sure that's what you meant to say?
Or are you trying to imply that Clinton was the anti-establishment candidate and your votes didn't matter because the establishment candidate won anyway?
What he is saying is the DNC hated him and the republican establishment hated him even more. Romney came out just to talk shit about him and went back into his troll hole. Multiple high ranking Republicans came out against him to support other candidates and that didn't even work. The rnc didn't even want to fund him. His funding was mostly grass roots and his own marketing. That's what he means.
Multiple high ranking Republicans came out against him to support other candidates
How about this? The most discredited war mongering Republicans and the corporate Koch brothers made high profile statements opposing Donald Trump for the specific purpose of feeding the "outsider" LARP.
4D chess, man (but really just grade school posturing).
So I'm a moron for thinking the Gop didn't want him but scrambled to figure out how to use him? How about don't say things like that because once you insult people they tend to think the rest of your words have as much significance as a cunt hair in the wind.
So I'm a moron for thinking the Gop didn't want him but scrambled to figure out how to use him? How about don't say things like that because once you insult people they tend to think the rest of your words have as much significance as a cunt hair in the wind.
"Let's bring back crucifixions. A form of capital punishment the Christians and Jews of America can really appreciate. And I'd go a little further, I'd crucify people upside-down. Like Saint Peter, feet up, head down. And naked. I'd have naked upside-down crucifixions on TV once a week at halftime on the Monday Night Football game! Halftime! Monday Night! The Monday Night Crucifixions! You'd have people tuning in, don't even care about Football! Wouldn't you like to hear Dan Dierdorf explain why the nails have to go in at a certain angle? And I'll guarantee you one thing. You start executing- you start nailing one white banker per week to a big wooden cross on national TV, you're going to see that drug traffic begin to slow down pretty fucking quick. Pretty fucking quick- you won't even be able to buy drugs in schools and prisons anymore!"
I would like to see a cross-carrying race, and the winner gets to get crucified head-up, but all the other losers, head down and used for archery targets.
Yes, they did. A self-avowed socialist nearly got the Democratic nomination for president. Hillary had to change her platform to try and bring his supporters under her tent. She is garbage, but those votes matter.
Did it tho? Because they didn’t let him win. In 08 Obama and Hillary fought it out, and it mattered in a sense of “do you want Hillary or Obama” but they were both bought and payed for by the same money... so did it really matter?
Obama actually promised the world but Congress shut his ideas down pretty quickly, he tried to close Guantanamo too but was rejected. Sanders would've ended up the same unfortunately.
Obama was compromised the minute he grabbed at power. He was a very different man before his presidential plans fully enveloped him. His promises in the campaign were all lies, he became a "charming" picture rather than a man.
The US has huge leverage over the economy of Mexico. I honestly have no idea why people think this claim was silly. Border funding and protection are routine parts of trade deals. For example the French trade deal with morroco consists of forcing morroco to bot pay for and maintain a fortified border. Similarly the British deal with France has long required the border responsibility and protection to be at the cost and responsibility of France.
I think Donald is keeping most of his campaign promises. Though for your information on my bias I continue to be a supporter of his despite his idiocy. So take that belief as you will.
This claim was silly because he’s now asking for Congress for the money to build the wall so obviously Mexico isn’t paying for it, we are. We all knew it wouldn’t be true and lo and behold it isn’t.
I believe he still intends to recoup the cost through trade agreements at Mexico's cost but I can see how this is not literally the same way implied by the scenarios I offered. It still doesn't make the initial scenario silly though, it's just a different way of shifting cost?
Of course it makes it silly. You’re never going to “recoup the cost” all it means is that shit that’s made in Mexico now...Xbox’s, fridges, air conditioners, etc. will now increase in price to offset the Mexican tariffs so not only will the American people be paying for the wall through taxes they’ll also be paying more for goods. All for a wall that isn’t feasible and does nothing against the majority of illegal immigrants who are coming in planes and overstaying their visas.
As people would be unwilling to pay more manufacturers would either be forced to move and produce in America or Mexico would have to subsidise the industries to keep them. The idea that Americans would pay the cost of higher tarrifs is a really basic misunderstanding of the value of the American market.
And I agree the majority of illegal immigration is not through border crossings, a lot of the more criminal elements however are.
So, you want to limit trade with a bunch of shit hole countries. What this does is forces America to shop elsewhere or manufacture themselves.
But remember, these are shit jobs worked by uneducated people, that is not what you want to be focusing resources on. If America suddenly needs to produce a load of new product, it requires a workforce to do so. Now you have a large portion of your workforce tied to low skilled, low paying(possibly subsidised) jobs creating a labour shortage for more profitable ventures.
It should be seen as stages to a countries development. Eventually you become rich enough that old methods of income aren't worth the time or effort - so you outsource that industry to worse off countries which you can buy from at a discounted rate. So not only does it work out cheaper, it's more economically beneficial to have the lowest member of society earning higher amounts.
I didn't say that at all. I said that the consumption economy is far too valuable for Mexico or the companies importing goods to lose. So the adjustments will occur on the supply side as it does when dealing with any valuable consumer base. Hence Mexico will eat the cost to keep the jobs or the companies will relocate, one solution or the other, to the gap, will occur. What won't happen is a rise in costs for the American consumer as rival trade partners will seek advantage in trade with the US if Mexican prices raise.
I will add manufacturing jobs are still important in a first world economy though, and your dismissal of them as not well placed in a highly developed economy shows a huge misunderstanding of the way a global economy functions compared to the familiar national models. There are always low skilled sections of a population and easy access work is often the best way to raise these communities up. Again this is only to correct your uneducated assumptions about modern economic focus for countries, not what I was arguing.
I’m pushing the narrative of objective reality. The American tax payer is paying for the stupid wall and no one is ever reimbursing us for it. Those are called facts. I know they’re alien in your world.
Actually, I have no idea and you have no idea. I know that assuming things and stating it as a fact when it plays into the bias you already have is NOT alien in your world.
I thought he might possibly look into 911 and the Saudi angle. Of course, I knew his decades-long reputation as a charlatan, so I treated everything he said as if it was coming from the mouth of a used car salesman.
I was a bit surprised though that his first overseas trip was to dance with the king of SA and offer him 110 billion in arms, maybe not that there was no investigation- but, wow, that's a 180. Apparently, he knows his supporters won't call him out on his lies, though.
It did bring us this gif of Bannon in his nightmare scenario, which is usually good for a chuckle: http://i.imgur.com/9zUV3GX.gif
I don't know how many times I have heard, "Obama's a liar, he said he would close Guantanamo," when the fact is he tried, and was always shut down by the right.
It’s such a lazy comparison, that’s why. Obama and Sanders were two completely different movements - Sanders was an actual complete outsider running a legitimate grassroots campaign. Obama compromised his ideals early on. He gave up on the grassroots network that got him elected.
To put it simply, when Obama tries to pass healthcare reform he immediately started negotiating to placate the same lobbyists who he was vilifying during his campaign. When Sanders tries to pass healthcare reform he’ll have hundreds of thousands of people descending on DC backing up his agenda. It would be unlike anything you could imagine. Anyone saying Bernie would have just been another Obama is either lazy or not paying attention or both.
The Democratic establishment has already rigged the 2020 Presidential election. They won't let another "Bernie" happen. They don't want us to have a choice that doesn't include them.
The Democrats moved the California primary elections to very early in the year. California is such a huge state both in population and geography wise that whoever wins the California primary will have a huge advantage over the other candidates. It will take a lot of money to campaign effectively in California so the only candidates that have a chance are the establishment candidates that start out with a huge war chest.
Watch for Kamala Harris the junior Senator from the Great State of California to be the Democrat's choice for President elect in 2020. Kamala Harris is really good friends with Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi by the way. (Just a coincidence ya know!)
Oh wow someone who is in a political party has ties with huge members of the same party! Someone call the cops fast! The biggest conspericy I have ever read.
Well...The reason that I mentioned Kamala's connection with Hillary and Nancy is because you will not hear it mentioned in the mainstream media very much. Hillary and Nancy both come with a lot of baggage and negatives so they will start to pretend to distance themselves from Kamala even though they are the true puppet masters. Hillary and Nancy will ensure that Kamala gets the financial support to win California in 2020 and we won't know about it.
So...It's really great news if you like Kamala and want her to win but if you want an outsider or more left leaning candidate to win the primaries the Democratic establishment has already taken that choice away from you.
I love George Carlin.. I was lucky enough to watch his shows when I was young. Yeah, it was vulgar. And yeah, there was a small lack of parental supervision considering I was like 10; but it left an impression that I will never forget. I knew it was supposed to be comedy, but I really felt connected, and felt like I understood what he was saying. He was the realist, telling the truth that people could laugh at because they sort of get it, but dont want to admit it's not just satire. He was a great man, who could speak his mind and vent about the depressing realities of our lives while disguising it as comedy.
Comedy is the only thing left that is truth. Think about it. George could say anything he wanted and then laugh and say. Ha funny joke right?
A man in Quebec Canada was fined because someone came to his show. Heckled him. He heckled her back. Then things got out of hand and he called her a dyke. Then she sued him for 30k and won. Remember this is Canada. People can’t just sue each other for everything like the United States.
Joe Rogan talks about this on his podcast. They’re trying to make everything offensive so they can control you.
I believe the elite are afraid of death. With the invention of AI they can live forever and their memories and knowledge can be downloaded and uploaded over and over. Either they can live as a computer generated AI or through another human who has been cloned and farmed to house their ongoing thoughts and memories. These people know that the earth only has a certain amount of resources and with the invention of recycling there’s no need for mining therefor they do not need us anymore. They only need us for another 10-20 years because the probability of a genius with a breakthrough is higher with a higher world population. Once they have figured out how to live forever population control will get rid of a lot of people.
I'm sure one of Google's chiefs of engineering would know more about it than you.
Plus there's this. Soul uploading is already here.
According to Anisimov, psychotronic weapons are those that act to "take away a part of the information which is stored in a man's brain. It is sent to a computer, which reworks it to the level needed for those who need to control the man, and the modified information is then reinserted into the brain." These weapons are used against the mind to induce hallucinations, sickness, mutations in human cells, "zombification," or even death.
Holy shit, sod the fuck off, seriously. He was talking about comedy being deemed more offensive in order to control citizens or narratives. Control is the game- control what people can say in a classically-styled free forum like comedy/standup.
actually his thought process isn't as far fetched as you're making it out to be. He didn't say anything about lizard people. He mentioned something that people have been searching to find for at least 500 years. Ponce de León ring a bell?
With the invention of AI they can live forever and their memories and knowledge can be downloaded and uploaded over and over.
TIL AI = I can live as a computer. No, that's a fundamental misunderstanding of Artificial intelligience. AI could aid that, but it'd require serious advancements in brain interfacing for a start.
Of course people have been searching for a cure for death, that's literally the holy grail. That doesn't make it any more realistic, nor does it come as a surprise that the richest want to extend their lives - that's an evolutionary trait, to avoid death.
Then he goes onto human cloning, in the realm of possibility, though it'd still require massive advancements in tech. not only that, but it'd also require massive advancements in order to switch bodies.
Then he goes onto recycling, which in his world is 100% perfect and doesn't require mining anymore.
Then he mentions the elite will have no need for us in 20 years. Possible, but it'll be because of advanced robotics rather than a miraculous breakthrough.
It's not far fetched if you own a time machine. And saying that isn't that far fetched as scientists are working on it as we speak, gotta be close - right? /s.
Everything he says requires sci-fi level breakthroughs in the next 20 years. We're close to the tech singularity, but no where near 20 years close.
Can you fuck off, yet? Saying someone is talking about lizard people is a common technique and it can definitely be considered gaslighting, as in they're made to think they're crazy for what they're discussing.
Fair enough, I'll concede he should think he's crazy for thinking that.
Conspiracy theories like his are the reason credible theories are laughed at. You can sit there and spout nonsense, or you can use some brain power to think about what you're suggesting.
I'm not attacking him for 'that'd be way too complex to pull off' or 'too many people involved' reasons or any other typical avenue of discrediting theories. I'm saying that person has no idea what he's talking about based on conclusions and assumptions they make on technology, so their argument is fuelled by ignorance.
There was nothing substantial enough in their post for you to form an opinion on the poster’s knowledge of AI/consciousness sciences. How can you say anything is fuelled by ignorance when your own posts are just examples of trite idiocy fuelled by ignorance under the guise of the oh so woke realist. Get lost
You may have you opinion but I have laughed hard and out loud at each Dave special and the 2 newest at my favorites (after killin email softly) esp the bird conspiracy.
He pointed out something he didn't like; that doesn't make him upset. I like Chappelle, and I liked Carlin, particularly when I was trying to 'find my own voice' as in my college days.
Yeah but Carlin had a point. Chappelle just jumped on the bandwagon and shits on Trump because it's what all the SJW celebs are doing. I'm a fan of Chappelle and not even a Trump supporter but it is just cheap jokes, I like my comedians edgy.
Chappelle is definitely not going that same route. He is just taking cheap shots at Trump because that's the latest new thing all SJW celebs are doing. He's just hopping on the hate train.
Voting will matter. With I'D and tech. I should be able to look up my vote ten yearslater in a database and it should be the same. Someone with time one their hands should be able to check every vote against the database.
Carlin and Hicks were probably the funniest smartest comedians around at the time. Many have tried to fill their rather large boots but it is usually hit and miss.
As for voting, Stalin had it his way, employ the counters directly and they will count accordingly. An added bonus is that those who voted for an opponent can be identified and disenfranchised.
It's a reason many nations' who wish to play more than lip-service to democracy seek independent or even outside observers to oversee the democratic process.
I often compare Bill Burr's newer work to Carlin. The older he gets, the more honest he becomes. It doens't seem like he's slowing down anytime soon either.
Yeah gonna need a source on that. USSR was a 1 party state and if anyone was problematic they were expelled from the party, thats how elections were controlled but there were plenty of times stalin didnt get his preferred way in the supreme soviet.
Liberal democracy is divide and conquer for the rich that achieves very little over minimal differences under a weak foundation of capitalism. All parties in a liberal democracy bend to the whim of these interests by design, and if not they're either not allowed to win or are deposed or murdered afterwards. It creates an inefficient government and a hopelessly, endlessly divided population.
While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".
Liberal democracy, as you call it comes in many flavours, and thankfully has a heck of a lot less purges.
Is that what you call persecuting or murdering communists, socialists, trade unionists, etc? How did Bill Haywood and Fred Hampton die again? McCarthy never happened? How about all those death squads and dictators "liberal democracy" happily supported if it meant socialist purges? CIA and FBI don't infiltrate trade unions worldwide?
You have yet to realize that your entire moral foundation is built on lies and blood.
Is that what you call persecuting or murdering communists, socialists, trade unionists, etc?
Some things had to be done, otherwise murderous bastards like Stalin would've been calling the shots.
How did the likes of Fred Hampton or John Africa die again?
Never heard of them so don't care.
McCarthy never happened?
Didn't go far enough in my opinion, far too many cultural marxists were left to fester resulting in the counter culture war that was encouraged by the KGB foreign operations desk, but hey, that US Constitution even protects the free speech of seditious bastards.
How about all those death squads and dictators "liberal democracy" happily supported if it meant socialist purges?
As Reagan said, "He may be a bastards, but he's our bastard, and so in the geopolitical sphere, no big thing considering the cost of doing nothing would have been hundreds of millions of deaths in Communist purges.
CIA and FBI don't infiltrate trade unions worldwide?
Spies and their ways are dirty by nature. So another reminder, the KGB did exist too and did exactly the same. They helped groups like CND and left wing terror groups throughout the world.
You have yet to realize that your entire moral foundation is built on lies and blood.
How many hundreds of millions of people would have to be starved or murdered before you would disavow Communism?
Hundreds of millions were not starved or murdered. Your entire premise is based on a lie. Cultural Marxism is a literal fascist piece of propaganda-- Jewish Bolshevism renamed.
You're a despicable human if you think murdering people for being socialist is acceptable and then cry crocodile tears for "democracy."
Hundreds of millions were not starved or murdered. Your entire premise is based on a lie.
Sure. The Red Terror never happened. The Cultural Revolution never happened. The Latin American and African adventures never happened.
Cultural Marxism is a literal fascist piece of propaganda-- Jewish Bolshevism renamed.
History speaks for itself. The slow march through the institutions is a thing.
You're a despicable person if you think murdering people for being socialist is acceptable and then cry crocodile tears for "democracy."
War has casualties. If the choice is between a few hundred wannabe murderous communist malcontents or an entire population enslaved by a Communist Government, as those at the top table would say, it is a cost worth bearing.
You should try selling the clap, you'd get more customers.
Mouthing off events while being incapable of actually providing a source for your mythological death tolls.
Nazi propaganda isn't history and you are as I described, a despicable hypocrite. You get hoodwinked by propaganda and immediately think yourself so superior you have the right to murder someone and call it "democracy."
For all of "Liberal Democracy's" faults, free elections is much better than having a government intent on enforcing an ideology at all costs, which usually involves murdering more than just truth.
Read George Orwell and leave me alone. I'm not interested in commies or their bull crap, if I was, I'd be on the commie threads.
Geopolitics is a horrible game but a necessary one. Dead commies are better than commies killing or enslaving 30% to 60% of the population.
With an ideology built on class hatred, it always ends up with bloodletting on industrial scales.
The late great, one of a kind, George Orwell
George Orwell fought side by side with the Socialist and Commie factions out in Spain against Franco. He saw first hand how the left always eats itself.
So of your worst accusation is that the great late Orwell was no more than his trade, you really must dislike him.
Communist Icons
Stalin was a murderous tyrant.
Che Guevara, Communist poster boy.
Chairman Mao and his Communist inspired killing sprees.
Commies never killed or enslaved 30% to 60% of any population at any point in history. Stop parroting fascist propaganda without citing sources.
Capitalism is built on class hatred, as was feudalism before it. Capitalism itself is a necessary stepping stone to socialism, but I doubt you've read Marx. Communism is a classless society, so there inherently cannot be any class hatred. Socialism is largely based on the "dictatorship of the proletariat" but can you please explain how this is worse than our current dictatorship of the bourgeoise? As you so arrogantly say, "geopolitics is a horrible game but a necessary one."
Orwell fought with anarchists. He never saw anything firsthand as it was not a "communist" war. In fact most anarchists today would blame the USSR for why they lost despite them reverting to tribalism quite quickly.
I don't dislike Orwell, but a propagandist is a propagandist and he was paid to inform on socialists. That doesn't make his literal fiction into reality, to say the least.
Stalin was not a murderous tyrant, nor were Guevara or Mao. Historical revisionism might provide validation but it helping you feel good doesn't make it true.
You are an out and out liar and apologist for an ideology built on oppression.
You are worse than a propagandist, you are a cheer leading supporter of class war and state control.
I've actually spoken to many who have actually lived under Communist oppressed societies. I even know a East Germany lady who fled East Berlin under a hail of bullets.
My country has a strong socialist history, as did the US until it was exterminated. There was this little conflict called "The Troubles" that Northern Ireland in particular still suffers from mass shellshock from. Living in a country where white people are racist and murder other white people grants one an interesting perspective.
So even after suffering political and sectarian violence, you still reckon that an all powerful state controlled by a Communist party is the way forward?
Wow. You really want to try and have another revolution?
Please read Orwell's misadventure in Spain. Please.
There is no "all powerful state" under socialism since true socialism is unachievable without true social democracy (which the USSR had), and communism is a stateless society yet to exist. This is mythology that only demonstrates your basic lack of actual tangible knowledge. You keep parroting someone else's propaganda and it's so blatant.
I don't want an anarchist revolution, no. Though I sympathize with the cause, anarchism has no practical application on a societal level though I would advocate for it in certain circumstances because I believe strongly in the individual, but I also believe strongly in society. I'd rather more along the lines of the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution that made the USSR the first in the world to give women the right to vote and ensure employees could unionize, among other little things like raising life expectancy by 65%, eradicating unemployment and homelessness, ending famine that occurred like clockwork under the Tsar and kulaks, achieved full literacy from a starting point of 56%, eliminated the gender pay gap, heavily subsidized child daycare, etc.
Stability and slow progress towards a better way works.
Giving the State the power to decide everything is a recipe for disaster.
I don't care about communism, and I don't want to be arguing about it for it is a subject I have little care for.
Leave me be. The best you could ever hope from me is indifference, all this pushing and I will end up the next Franco.
Propaganda is many faced.
I don't buy in the government will provide, whatever flavour they offer it in, I prefer the checks and balances that only personal liberty can provide.
There is no stability or "slow progress" under capitalism. It inhibits progress at every single turn and is completely unstable, or do you conveniently forget every time it crashes and burns and has to be bailed out by the state and the taxpayer?
If you keep peddling John Birch Society bullshit I'm going to keep calling it out. You're a shamelessly ignorant hypocrite who pretends to care about democracy almost as much as the U.S. Government.
Communism isn't a system of governance. Government functions as government functions, only led by the people directly and not bought and paid for con artists.
Capitalism needs to be enforced and actually leads to fascism. I would rather enforce upon exploiters than the working person, for whom capitalism does not care about and only the struggles of socialists have garnered even decent working conditions for them.
Socialism and fascism are incompatible and there is no crossover, they are fundamentally opposed. It's possible for someone to originally be a socialist and then become a fascist, like Mussolini, but they aren't a shared state of mind. Capitalism is fundamental to fascism, hence why enslaving and exterminating communists, socialists, trade unionists etc and declaring war on "Jewish Bolshevism" was the Nazi MO, was it also justified by the Nazis? Because if you wanna agree with the fundamental philosophy of the Nazis... might want to start calling yourself a Nazi.
The capitalist nations in WWII were hoping that socialism (USSR) and fascism (Italy, Nazi Germany) would destroy each other because they are natural opposites. There is no overlap unless you are completely uneducated on both, which I suspect.
Except for the part where Hitler declared the Nazi goal of exterminating Marxism and killed or enslaved any actual socialists in the party and attested to using the name to steal the working vote away from the communists.
But yeah, good job displaying just how historically illiterate you are with nonsense on par with that loser Ben Shapiro.
You're full of shit and trying to mask it with blind malice and hatred.
The USSR model allowed plenty of dissent, you need to start citing sources because you are only making yourself look foolish. They had gulags just as America has prisons, prisons which hold more than the gulags ever did, and the purges have not only been conducted by America on nationwide scales across the world by your own admission (it's just okay when it's against socialists), but did not target innocent people.
"Re-education" is not an invalid concept. It is rehabilitation, there is simply no money to be made in rehabilitating people. In your eyes the USSR was somehow different from the US and things like imprisonment, rehabilitation and the death penalty are suddenly unacceptable. The author of "The Gulag Archipelago" had his cancer cured twice in the gulag and had a desk job that allowed him to write it in the first place. Yet apparently these gulags were so cutthroat and careless.
It really is amazing how much you've been suckered by propaganda. There is a good video series on the purges which I'll leave here but sincerely doubt you'd bother listening because you're only interested in things which validate your preconceived biases.
"Only shared human misery" minus all those millions lifted out of poverty and provided education, healthcare, etc. Let's ignore those in favor of fictional people who exist only in death tolls reported by fascists and multiplied by mistranslations or other dishonest tactics like blaming individual men for famines.
The pudding you reference doesn't exist. You can't cite sources because you don't have any, you're just spectacularly full of shit.
Ireland isn't British. I'm not trying to convert you, I'm pointing out how full of shit you are. To your credit, you aren't even trying to deny it and are just bold-faced regurgitating lies.
And yet again, you keep coming back. This doesn't affect me at all so I have no issue replying. If you keep saying dumb things I can respond to, I will respond to them. The solution is to stop saying dumb things and actually stop replying or block me.
So what if you're Irish, I was stating that in Britain, Communism is a busted flush so why would I even bother trying to discredit an already discredited ideology.
Don't know how to block but you're right, it's my fault for feeding a seagull.
Good luck flogging the dead horse that is communism, you'll need it.
Then why are you talking about Britain and why am I supposed to care? You realize Jeremy Corbyn, an open socialist (more of a "social democrat") is quite popular right now and expected to take power pretty much any day? At least pay attention to another country's affairs before you remark.
You seem quite ignorant of history if you think Britain is known for individualism over collectivism. Seems you've brushed over trade unions and socialists entirely despite both already having a hold there.
All that bluster and rhetoric coming from someone who can't cite a single source. Explain to me how you're not full of shit?
From Wikipedia but fuck it, I ain't digging out the library card to explain to an idiot that rain is wet. Go there for the citations you so much crave.
According to the declassified Soviet archives, during 1937 and 1938, the NKVD detained 1,548,366 persons, of whom 681,692 were shot – an average of 1,000 executions a day (in comparison, the Tsarists executed 3,932 persons for political crimes from 1825 to 1910 – an average of less than 1 execution per week).[6]
According to NKVD statistics, from July 1937 to November 1938, 335,513 persons were sentenced by troikas in the course of the implementation of the National Operations. Among them, 247,157 (or 73.6%) were executed by shooting.[83]
Several experts believe the evidence released from the Soviet archives is understated, incomplete, or unreliable.[6][84][85][86] For example, Robert Conquest claimed that the probable figure for executions during the years of the Great Purge is not 681,692, but some two and a half times as high and cited a figure of 1,750,000 given by both the Head of the Russian Archives and a spokesman for the Security Ministry. He believes that the KGB was covering its tracks by falsifying the dates and causes of death of rehabilitated victims.[7][87] A common practice of falsification for lowering the execution numbers was disguising executions with the sentence ten years without the right of correspondence. All of the bodies identified from the mass graves at Vinnitsa and Kuropaty were of individuals who had received this sentence.[88] However, the lower figure did roughly confirm Conquest's original 1968 estimate of 700,000 "legal" executions and in the preface to the 40th anniversary edition of The Great Terror, Conquest claimed that he had been "correct on the vital matter—the numbers put to death: about one million"."[89]
Historian Michael Ellman claims the best estimate of deaths brought about by Soviet repression during these two years ranges from 950,000 to 1.2 million, which includes deaths in detention and those who died shortly after being released from the Gulag, as a result of their treatment therein. He also states that this is the estimate historians and teachers of Russian history should use.[8] Soviet Professor Iosif G. Dyadkin estimated 1.42 million unnatural deaths were brought about by the Great Purge during 1937–1938 in his demographic study on unnatural deaths in the Soviet Union under Stalin.[90] Jonathan Brent and Vladimir P. Naumov were less specific simply saying "Millions perished in the Yezhovshchina."[91]
The extent of the Great Purge has been questioned by revisionist scholars in the West, especially after the (partial) opening of the relevant Soviet files of the period in the early 1990s.[92][93][94] Jerry F. Hough claims, regarding the numbers executed in the Great Purge, "a figure in the low hundreds of thousands seems much more probable than one in the high hundreds" and that a lower figure of only "tens of thousands" was "even probable".[95] Sheila Fitzpatrick also placed the numbers executed in the "low hundreds of thousands."[95] Robert W. Thurston allows for 681,692 executions.[96]
Robert Conquest has been thoroughly debunked by historians on all sides of the spectrum (and was a British agent and propagandist) and your own source even refutes his numbers by saying it was probably hundreds of thousands less. That's a lot of made-up people. Hooray propaganda!
The purges did not target innocent people and it was during a time of high tension due to Nazi Germany and its propaganda, spy and collaborative campaigns with the likes of Trotskyites. I have already provided you a whole video series that goes very in-depth into the purges starting from the trials themselves, it is no surprise you have yet to watch it. Here it is again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBY_aDd5knE
You gave me Wikipedia copypasta that can't even decide what figures are true. I've given you several books, videos, etc. You're spectacularly full of shit as usual, it's rather interesting how consistent you are with it. You've been at this for a while.
I never said I was historian. You would just learn about history from a historian, yes? Logically you should also learn about communism from a communist, as you would want to learn anything from someone who already knows what it is. Otherwise you end up with this pathetic display you've been putting on for hours now: stabbing in the dark and spewing the shit you're full of all over the place.
Then explain how it has eaten itself previously? I don't think the US military destroying Cuba's agriculture was Cuba eating themselves. Assassinating democratically elected leaders all over the world either for that matter...
Only have a hard on for killing commies. It's strange since I only recently felt like this. Not sure why I feel this way. Maybe some annoying little Irish Commie preacher is trying to defend a well documented brutal regime that placed ideology above the people.
You're a sick puppy and support death squads and fascists.
I'm not defending anything, historical documents speak more clearly than a little man full of malice, hate and ignorance. The most easily led kind of person. I doubt you are beyond rehabilitation though. I suggest trying cannabis and psilocybin. If they're good enough for PTSD they're good enough for whatever mental hang-ups foment that vile bloodlust of yours.
Commies are the oppressive murderers but here you call for the death of anyone identifying as communist. As I said earlier, an ignorant hypocrite.
While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".
Einstein is already dead so a moot point. Plus, don't remember him shooting any unharmed dissidents. Remember the poster with the hair but not being part of the NKVD. Must have missed that part.
Still, let us not argue over past regimes who failed at installing communism, let us look at Venezuela today. How is that Socialist paradise working out?
Most socialists haven't shot unarmed "dissidents". Einstein is already dead yet you condemn socialists to die based on the actions (very debatable) of dead people in a nation that existed decades ago. Hypocrite as usual.
Venezuela based its socialist programmes on oil and did not diversify the economy or boot out the capitalists, so most of the media is owned by right wing oligarchs. Socialism itself didn't "fail." By that logic, capitalism failed soon after its inception and has failed with every crash and recession, plentiful as they are. Why don't we judge all of capitalism on the horrible performances of single nations? Again... hypocrite.
Most socialists haven't shot unarmed "dissidents".
The ideology has directed led to millions being slaughtered.
Einstein is already dead yet you condemn socialists to die based on the actions (very debatable) of dead people in a nation that existed decades ago. Hypocrite as usual.
Not all commies, only those who try and install such an evil ideology on those unwilling to accept it.
Venezuela based its socialist programmes on oil and did not diversify the economy or boot out the capitalists, so most of the media is owned by right wing oligarchs. Socialism itself didn't "fail."
Yeah, if only the ruling party had liquidated their political opponents, Socialism would have worked!
Listen to yourself.
By that logic, capitalism failed soon after its inception and has failed with every crash and recession, plentiful as they are. Why don't we judge all of capitalism on the horrible performances of single nations? Again... hypocrite.
Property rights and personal liberty sell themselves, they don't need capitalism nor commies to tell them how to spend their time or resources.
Has there been problems? Sure, but none ended in the mass enslavement of a population, unlike nearly every fucking collectivism system which always knows best, so much so, that any mistakes must be buried in mass graves.
The ideology has directed led to millions being slaughtered.
It hasn't though. This is myth. You also admit to not wanting to even read or consider opposing information.
Property rights and personal liberty sell themselves
Property rights are better served in collective hands and communism enables personal liberty to far greater extent than capitalism ever has, can or will.
but none ended in the mass enslavement of a population
See banana republics and other forms of colonialism and imperialism.
They have. They don't. And geopolitical cold warring had many side effects. Those that supported commies got gulags, those who supported freedom got freedom.
Face it, Communism will never be a force in the British Isles.
I think it's essential to note that the majority of gassing locations were debunked by mainstream western historians in the 60's. In the 40's there were 10+ locations in Germany, Austria and Belgium (https://np.reddit.com/r/holocaust/comments/2unh6d/locations_where_poison_gases_were_allegedly_used/coaisk7) where it was claimed that the Nazis gassed people, and there were witnesses and even Nazi "confessors" who swore this was true. Today, there are but six gassing locations, and all are in Poland. Importantly, the Soviets would not allow western inspection of the Polish camps in the 60's. In other words, the current allegations of "Nazi gas chambers" rely entirely on Soviet claims from the 1940's.
You may, for example, wish to look into the initial Soviet claims after capturing Auschwitz (https://www.reddit.com/r/holocaust/wiki/auschwitz-walendy), where they said they discovered an electrocution conveyor belt, blast furnace, and placed the "gas chambers" on the opposite side of the camp as is now believed. Similarly, at Nuremberg, 19 months after capturing Belzec, the Soviets were still claiming that electrocution was the method of killing there (http://winstonsmithministryoftruth.blogspot.com/2010/06/electrocuted-to-ashes-at-belzec.html). Then there are the infamous "steam chambers" of Treblinka, the human soap and lampshades, shrunken heads, etc -- an enormous number of erroneous and debunked claims which are always omitted by the Holocaust industry.
Similarly, the footage and pictures of dead bodies in the western camps (since debunked as "extermination camps") are repetitively shown without informing the viewer that they were the result of disease in the last weeks and months of the war, as supplies dwindled with the collapse of the German state under the barrage of Allied bombing. US Army doctors confirmed this at the time (see the article on the liberation of the camps(http://www.ihr.org/leaflets/libcamps.shtml).)
Next, regarding links: there's a giant cache of material at the /r/holocaust/wiki. I'd recommend starting with a few short videos by a French historian who is about to go back to prison a second time for his research:
While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".
As some redditor mentioned on Communism, Socialism, Comintern, and Lenin:
Communism=workers own the means of production, the fruits of production are distributed by workers on a union by union basis (originally); 20th century modification by lenin at COMINTERN, the state owns the means of production on behalf of workers, the fruits of production distributed to all citzens by the state.
this is actually how the USSR's domestic economy functioned in practice. in the USSR there where no homeless people, everyone was fed, housed, and employed, however none but the corrupt elites had luxury of any kind. stalin was a sociopath who permanently destroyed quality of life in the soviet union, not because he was a communist, but because he was insane, like all rabid ideologues.
socialism=the workers own the means of production, the fruits of production are distributed on a union by union basis (until COMINTERN, socialism and communism had been regional synonyms). in socialism the state's purpose is to protect the unions and the people through progressive income taxes and anti-corporation laws from counter-revolution by capitalists and situations where the fruits of one's labor are insufficient to support oneself.
socialism has never come closer to implementation than social democracy, which is just kinder, gentler capitalism.
despite his cynical insistence on calling himself a democratic socialist, bernie sanders is no more socialist than russ fiengold, and considerably more imperialistic. he is a social democratic capitalist, i.e. a kensyian.
socialism and communism do not address or involve anything but economic liberation and economic class struggle based on combating the 1%'s econo ic hegemo y and exploitation. any social/culutral identity/morality issues, like being pro-life or a pink pussy-hatter for instance, appended to either is like putting a flag pin on your lapel. it has nothing to do with your jacket.
anarchism is the abrogation of the state, the means of production, and property altogether. we've been linked to distributive statism for going on 200 years, but we are closer to pro-property anti-statists (libertarians), than we are to them.
the four political quadrants:
aquistive statism (ecocomically liberal capitalism to neoliberal facism) (top right)
distributive statism (socialism to communism) (top left)
culture war affliations, both "right" and "left" (aside: restrictive/permissive, exclusive/inclusive are more accurate terms), are moral convictions/philosphies, not political orientations.
most believers in either camp are statist in their personal approach, demanding everyone do as they do, that everyone agree with them.
both right and left economic anti-statists are also morality/personal conviction anti-statists. we could care less what you believe so long as you don't impose it on anyone else. you can be a racist, but you cannot harm others because of it, for example.
we need to stop using terms incorrectly and imprecisely and stop falling into the purposefully divisive, simplistic false left/right dichotomy trap.
I used to think this way. Either they would rig the election with the good old electronic voting machines, or they would use the media to propagandize the people to such an extent they would vote they way they wanted. They tried the latter with Brexit, and failed.
She was an anarchist and knew how the problems we face in society are caused by our capitalist system. Check her out.
Anarchism, then, really stands for the liberation of the human mind from the dominion of religion; the liberation of the human body from the dominion of property; liberation from the shackles and restraint of government. Anarchism stands for a social order based on the free grouping of individuals for the purpose of producing real social wealth; an order that will guarantee to every human being free access to the earth and full enjoyment of the necessities of life, according to individual desires, tastes, and inclinations
This statement makes even more sense when you understand marxism. "The state" and representative democracy are institutions by and for the bourgeoisie. They are self reinforcing and are meant to uphold the status quo.
They are meant to be conservative and slow moving by design. But its not a coincidence that these institutions were only created after revolutions. They changed things to suit themselves and made sure nothing could change afterwards.
Neh, people just don't give a shit. There's a portion that doesn't even know what the fuck they're doing when they do go to vote--Ive volunteered at polling places many times. I once volunteered at a senior center a few years ago and an old paisa asked me to help him vote for "El Negro." That was actually pretty funny. A good portion asks us what to vote for.
Not true. Voting obviously matters if you care about issues that are determined by who gets elected (which most people do, be it for one issue or another). No, voting won't destroy TPTB or the fed or the military industrial complex, but for everything else, voting demonstrably matters.
Voting matters. Your vote doesn't matter. The outcome will not be to your benefit. These things are decided elsewhere. That is the point of the quote I think.
I, bitscones, random poster on the internet is running for mayor of your city; if voting doesn't matter then this thought should not alarm you at all, it's not like it makes any difference who gets elected...
It doesn't matter if you or anyone else manages to be elected mayor. In fact it actually makes the point more poignant. Because you, as Mayor, have no power, you will be controlled by someone who does have power.
It doesn't matter if you or a literal raccoon is Mayor, because politicians don't set policy. Industry's do.
I honestly don't even know what to think anymore...
When I was a kid, everything seemed so black and white. Our votes don't seem to really count, so why bother wasting 15 minutes of my time doing it? I mean, I did it anyway, but I could understand why some folks didn't. In my youth, I couldn't conceive of a hidden hand that used man's hubris against them. Nefarious types couldn't possibly be capable of outsmarting us, could they?
Now with all the layered deceptions going on, it almost makes more sense that all these campaigns of complacency encouraging lackadaisical voters to stay home from the polls, is more of an attempt to just keep certain types of voters from showing up. Easier to control a person's actions, if you control their mind first.
Instead of having to take a biased test that caters to the 1% before being allowed to vote, they just plant their seeds of complacency, and let them spread like a cancer.
Like anything else though, that's just a theory. Regardless, I'll spend 15 minutes voting. If for no other reason than to do my part to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt how fucked the system is. I mean, if we all voted for one guy and the other guy wins, I can't help but feel it would at least spark some conversations.
I love George Carlin, but he was wrong on this. The money in politics doesn't grow massively every election because both parties are the same. It grows because the party of oligarchy keeps gaining more power over the "opposition" party -- while also gaining more control over the opposition party.
In fact, one of the dumbest things that too many people believe is "both parties are the same." No two people are the same -- how is it even possible that both parties are the same? It's not. This is the theory.
Then, there are the real world facts. One party gave us retirement, disability, welfare, wage rights, worker protections, unemployment, etc., the other gave us virtually none of this, and actively works to take it all away.
It's no coincidence that a few billionaires spend huge amounts of money in elections, and especially since the Citizens United corporate speech case.
It's like the Dems are the ones handing out soup, and the Reps are the accountants making sure they can keep doing it sustainably. Only somewhere along the lines both sides became crude caricatures of themselves, and in the ensuing circus, balance became less and less of a priority.
It's frustrating and sad watching politics play out, but we can't use that as an excuse to give up!
It's like the Dems are the ones handing out soup, and the Reps are the accountants making sure they can keep doing it sustainably.
Except that its been consistently that way. When Democrats had control for long stretches, things improved in every area, especially economics. When Republicans had control, things slowed and even reversed. The current people make no secret that their goal is to tear down progress and bring us back to the 1920's or earlier. It's plain as day.
Too many smart people fervently believe something so dumb that a pre-schooler should know it. I can put it up a second time, but then people may either accept reality or reject it:
No two people are the same -- how is it even possible that both parties are the same? It's not.
Our voting matters a lot. An individual's vote does not. This is why millions are spent on influencing mass populations. If voting did not matter, then those millions would not be spent
They let you vote because this way you feel like you made a choice, you had been a part of the process and that democracy is real. Physically doing it makes people believe. Electoral college in america especially seeing the 2016 elections is clear proof that the system is rigged anyway, voting is to please the masses.
If this were true, one has a lot of trouble in explaining the UK's leave vote. There was huge speculation that MI5 would rig the vote to protect the elites, banks, the government and the cat, but it didn't happen. It went through. It also explains how Trump got into the white house. He's not a career politician, nobody thought he had a chance, the vote would be rigged and it just... wasn't.
Just like we here in switzerland.. We had a voting about immigrants.. I know its controversal. But here is the point. We vote all the time about stuff.. This voting was some years ago now. We voted. It got accapted. And then they sayd "ooh damn it doesnt work with the rules with the EU".
The left are obviously happy and the media is still bashing on it. But i too have to say.. Do you see now what happends? They dont even care.. It is OUR vote.. We "technically" are above them. They have to check if it could work and then we have to vote. So, the entire parlament has failed. And nobody cares that they ignore our vote because.. Well, its "racist and mean".
There you go... Switzerland the so called most "neutral" country.
Yes, but at that point “they” had already won. Once it’s down to those final 2 they don’t care who “wins” because they already have. Between Trump and Hillary it’s gonna be the same shit for them, more fear and war mongering so they’re happy either way.
Thank you for pointing that out. Your state congressman you can see at the breakfast dinner everyday? Your councilman who's kid goes to your school? Your state assembly senator you can get ahold of by the phone? Those votes matter because they have to be held responsible where they live.
And then when you kick out the slimeball and plug in your fantastical "Politician with Integrity," guess what happens next? He gets a visit from your local lobbyist, who will successfully turn "Your Guy."
Direct democracy would only work if people were informed, but they're not. Sometimes you need people whose full time job is to research issues/understand laws.
Bernie takes a lot less corporate money than most politicians, but a lot of his "no corporate money all small donors" brand uses smoke and mirrors to make him look cleaner than he really is.
You know how he says his average donation is $27? It's not $27 per donor, it's per donation. So instead of having a rich person give him $2700, he had them give him $27 one hundred times. So his average "donation" would be small, but it was a gimmicked number. That's why he had so many FEC violations, people would miscount and give him more than the legal amount of money by accident. All of those donations in that link are above the legal maximum.
And while it's true that Sanders takes less money from Wall Street specifically than is normal for a politician, it was still a good 2% of his haul, with the healthcare industry being one of his big supporters.
And while Sanders didn't have a Super PAC of his own, he was willing to take support from and endorse Super PACs that supported him, like the National Nurses United for Patient Protection (1.3 million), Progressive Kick ($245k), or Reclaim Chicago ($150k) (Link is source for all three). Even if Sanders wasn't telling corporate donors to make a lot of little Super PACs instead of one big one so he'd look to have more grassroots support than he did, he could've done that (and the idea obviously occurred to him, because he was pushing his supporters to make multiple small donations)
yes and i would add that people should consider voting with their dollars. you can vote for a candidate who supports the environment but if you spend money on a product from a company that is destroying the environment its counter to what you want.
i know that kind of thinking gets dicey and complicated but id still think about it and make an effort
If voting didn’t matter then republicans wouldn’t be trying so hard to suppress minority, poor, and college age voters and they also wouldn’t be gerrymandering the ever loving shit out of their districts.
This post smells of subversion and apathy against voters.
Anybody who says voting doesn’t matter is trying to discourage you from voting for any kind of change they disagree with.
Oh it'll matter in 2018 and 2020 if you don't want to see traitorous and inept Republicans maintain complete control of the government and the ability to gerrymander districts even more in 2020--census year.
source? I'm a huge Carlin fan and don't recall ever hearing him say this... definitely seems like something he would have come up with though, so I'm curious :)
It's just an endless, dreary, flip-flopping cycle between the two same parties. One of them will win, our electoral system is broken, nobody ever implements anything in their manifesto and it's just waffle and horse shit.
It only seems unreal because we're truly given a facade of awareness via world news on controlled mainstream networks. They set the norms and expectations, which "deep state" -style cabal, shadowy bullshit antics don't fit into. So it seems to crazy to be real. Mission Accomplished.
Without voting you'd feel as powerless as you are. With voting, you feel included. Which is pretty remarkably dumb considering how your votes hold such little weight.
This is a gross understatement. It's like saying Al Gore = Bush. IF people voted for Al Gore more, history would have changed. Granted AL Gore is a shitty candidate, at least he wouldn't let his VP rape his soul with all the shit they pulled. All the lives lost. And we haven't even discussed LOCAL voting, which is crucial and effects are visceral undeniable except to the lazy and ignorant.
Ok. Voting alters trivial little politicized tidbits here and there.
Voting does not alter the tyrannical kleptocracrstic state we all live under. Voting rarely alters legislation. It mostly offers a relief valve for the frustration inherent to being a commodified wage slave.
Voting effective saves lives. More clear and undeniable in local government. IF you aren't choosing the right programs\people for your community via voting locally, you a fucking lazy fuckwad for sure.
I ran in a local election. I've spoken with local representatives. There's far fewer lives being saved by local bureaucracy than threatened by it. Voting doesn't change that one bit, because compassionate candidates are few and far in between and all their peers are arrogant pricks with comfy incomes that feel threatened by political reform.
The system was purposefully designed to be unresponsive to the needs of the constituents. A system designed to address those needs would involve direct democracy and direct action.
Representative democracy keeps the afflicted out of office and away from the legislative process. Hierarchies of executing that legislation make direct action illegal and prevent upwards persecution of corrupt politicians.
I'd rather be a lazy fuckwad than actively participate in a criminal enterprise, so, smoke that in your pipe.
Plus they have to put on a good show to keep us engaged. A significant portion of campaign money goes towards soundbites, advertisements, and misleading talking points designed to sway us into several polarizing directions. This keeps us divided up and occupied with fighting each other.
And they don't even keep people debating with anything of substance. They target people with little pet issues like abortion so you are looking somewhere else when they gut regulation of the financial system that holds your entire life savings. I guess I should clarify that I'm referring to both sides when I make this comment so someone doesn't accuse me of playing into the very arguments that I'm commenting about.
Seriously though, do vote. It's absolutely the only way you'll have any impact on the running of the government. And in the US it is supposed to be government "of the people, by the people, and for the people." They would love for to continue to not vote.
I get the protest of not voting, but despite the fact that this sub has been overtaken by a certain element recently... Creative thinkers and people who question the popular narrative are exactly the type of people who should be voting. Minus the real loonies.
This is the same dumb horse that is trotted out to keep people home.
"independents stay home, it doesn't matter. Not voting is smart, because it doesn't matter. Tell your friends how much cooler you are when you say you don't vote"
This mindset is exactly why Republicans have any hope of winning elections. Old people don’t believe this and that’s why their interests dominate. If everyone voted, liberal interests would win every time. That doesn’t mean to say that the effect of lobbying should be ignored, but if you see this and decide not to vote because of it, you are part of the problem.
Voting died the minute they allowed everyone to vote. Instead of voting for things of actual importance from the perspective of bettering and furthering a nation, now I simply vote to have resources taken from you by force and given to me.
If voting didn't matter, republicans woulnd't put so much god damn effort into disenfranchisement, gerrymandering, racist voter ID laws and conspiring with foreign powers to cheat their way into office.
Let me say I love love love target shooting and plinking/blasting stuff, and have a small collection of neat firearms.
But
the idea that gun owners are a threat to the government is laughable. Things that actually could pose a threat, (Modern) Rocket launchers/manpads, bombs/explosives, machine guns, artillery, military aircraft, access to military intelligence, electronic signal jammers - are all prohibited.
Your pop gun militia with all your buddies wild firepower- including your custom AR15s, big bore revolvers, Weatherby rifles with the 60x scope ain’t jack shit when compared with a unit of military.
All of those things are fun to shoot, but it’s absolutely ignorant to think they’re some kind of protection against an authoritarian government. How’s your crew going to fare when an AH-64 sees you with night vision from 3miles away?
I understand the quote, and it does make some sense.
But.... after watching how the deep state and every globalist /Marxist on earth has reacted to Trumps win, I fully believe that voting does make a difference.
Additionally, the corruption we see in the highest levels of our government is being exposed. The memo is exposing the globalists attempts to ensure that your vote doesn't count. Hopefully someone will hang over this shit.
How'd Trump win then? The entire establishment didnt want him in. This quote does imply that some higher authority decides, as opposed to the people, right?
This is the one thing Carlin said that wasn't just dead wrong, but really, really stupid and dangerous. It's the same issue with South parks "giant douche vs turd sandwich" with both parties being the same. If the past 2 years have taught us anything, it's that it isn't true.
I think recent events show that overwhelmingly, voting does matter. This "burn down the system" attitude is designed to make people apathetic and prevent them from becoming politically engaged. There is nothing profound here.
Like how gerrymandering and voter fraud laws are making our votes count less? Yeah, basically. I'll be honest though, Trump kind of showed me how a thin margin of a few people can determine the fate of a nation. The way I see it, you lose more by not exercising voting than not voting at all, in the off chance that your vote might actually make a difference.
I disagree w/ Carlin here thoroughly. He's actually dissuading from people being engaged in the democratic process. VOTING MATTERS. If the 99% actually came out to vote, it wouldn't matter how much dark money the 1% pours into elections.
Carlin is actually promoting apathy, and that only emboldens the corrupt who already have too much power.
What a close minded, vapid thing to say. So voter suppression is just not a thing eh? I'll be sure to tell that to the millions of people in Florida that aren't allowed to vote.
I have more opinions then this one quote, as do we all. This at the least is one impactful comedian who expressed opinions that made us think. That is all.
He said it in one of his specials, he tagged a rant with it. I do not think him being the first or last takes away from how thought provoking he was when pertaining to the govt.
There's a lot of people they don't let vote, either by making it a huge pain in the ass or outright banning anyone who's ever committed a crime from voting in, say, Florida.
The most important elections to vote for are the primaries and state/local elections but they have the worst turnout of all elections.
By the time a general election rolls around the slate's already been populated by the bought and paid for candidates.
The truth is our vote does matter. The problem is lack of participation in the process and general apathy has resulted in about a 50% voter turnout in America. Half the country has become so cynical they dont even participate and let themselves be rolled over.
I love carlin but he's simply wrong here. Voting matters, just not as much as we'd like. It's a fairly unambiguous truth that a benevolent dictator is the best form a government, it's just that sort of system has no way of reliably perpetuating itself in perpetuity. So the next best system is one take takes public opinion into "consideration," but fundamentally a representative form of government recognizes that people do not possess the knowledge and expertise to conduct direct democracy themselves.
Issues of corruption at least have the potential of being exposed, even within our own very flawed system of corporate news and new world order elite dreams, which is very much a 0.1% issue that they obsess over generation after generation. The fact you as an individual do not find illegal immigration helpful to your own life, they honestly don't give a fuck. They don't consider your tiny opinions to be serious enough to give much weight.
Thank you for pointing that out. Your state congressman you can see at the breakfast dinner everyday? Your councilman who's kid goes to your school? Your state assembly senator you can get ahold of by the phone? Those votes matter because they have to be held responsible where they live.
While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".
yes and i would add that people should consider voting with their dollars. you can vote for a candidate who supports the environment but if you spend money on a product from a company that is destroying the environment its counter to what you want.
i know that kind of thinking gets dicey and complicated but id still think about it and make an effort
Then why are you talking about Britain and why am I supposed to care? You realize Jeremy Corbyn, an open socialist (more of a "social democrat") is quite popular right now and expected to take power pretty much any day? At least pay attention to another country's affairs before you remark.
443 comments
1 foolsoftheworld 2018-02-04
As someone on the left who is obsessed with watching/listening to people before and after the 2016 election... I truly think this is a myth. I don’t support Donald trump but you would have to be a moron to think that the establishment didn’t want him.
1 dancing-turtle 2018-02-04
I think it was absolutely true in Carlin's time, and pretty much up until 2016, when both Sanders and Trump did way better than they were ever "supposed" to. Then, those unexpected successes put the political establishment into panic mode. Remains to be seen whether all their manoeuvring since then to clamp down on social and independent media and bring back McCarthyism will render 2016's populist uprising nothing but a blip, or if it's an irreversible trend.
Also, it's worth noting that Trump's election hasn't actually changed all that much yet. They did everything they could to rein him in. So even with his unexpected victory, I'm still not so sure it will have "mattered" from the viewpoint of his right-wing populist supporters who wanted him based on how he differed from other Republicans.
1 foolsoftheworld 2018-02-04
His SOTU could of been done by Jeb or Marco. It was the typical republican “America is good” speech. I’ll agree with you there.
While I don’t think that the populist movements are going to be something in the wind. I think the TRUE left are very active along with the “alt right/alt lite/what have you”. Trump and Bernie spoke to people.
We live in an era where everyone is treated they are still in elementary school. Your boss can call you in and punish you just like the principle. You call your tech customer service provider and the infatuate you like a child. Bernie and trump were the grandpas that told you what the fuck was up. I still think it resonates with people, and as long as the depression we are living in gets worse and worse, people will be pushed to the far right or the far left.
1 FactoryResetTrue 2018-02-04
Had he done anything else, it's all people would have talked about.
1 foolsoftheworld 2018-02-04
I know but the only redeeming factor of trump for me is how unhinged and unscripted he is
1 FactoryResetTrue 2018-02-04
Oh it is. And it's hilarious to watch how little it all really matters.
1 travinyle1 2018-02-04
Living in South Carolina and watching every Republican primary for 30+ years I knew something was off script when Jeb Bush came here and couldn't pull in more than a dozen people at a rally.
Meanwhile Trump is packing out arenas. The folks in the state GOP establishment I talked to were in an ABSOLUTE panic. Trump is out there talking about Bush lying about Iraq and the 911 stuff. I could not believe he was getting away with it. People were truly fed up with the Bushes establishment etc..
It was one of the few if not only organic grass roots political swing I have ever seen.
Saying all that am I declaring Trump is not controlled opposition. Of course not. I do think it was supposed to be Jeb Bush vs Hillary with a Hillary victory.
1 KiwiBattlerNZ 2018-02-04
So they were handed exactly what they were looking for... and nothing at all has changed.
1 travinyle1 2018-02-04
I'm just curious what do you think Trump is capable of changing in this first year that he hasn't?
1 TxYz 2018-02-04
maybe he could prosecute Clinton, Obama, Bush? after all the Wikileaks info and "lock her up" chants he campaigned on.. when he said he wouldn't do that after he won it was clear without doubt that he has no real interest in fighting the establishment or holding people in power accountable.. that could open doors noone in power wants to open
1 curiosity36 2018-02-04
Why did he say he would look into SA ties to 911 (15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis....that would make sense) but instead have his first international visit to dance with their king in his headdress and longrobes and offer them 110 billion in arms?
1 KiwiBattlerNZ 2018-02-04
Trump is establishment. He's just the clown to distract you, Like Bush Jnr was.
One acted like a retarded fool, the other like an egotistical fool, but both of them were/are to distract you from what's really going on.
1 vishix 2018-02-04
Do enlighten us on what is really going on please...
1 PrimeMinsterTrumble 2018-02-04
The establishment have gotten their tax cuts. They are perfectly happy and dont care about anything else. Because of it there will soon be a budget crisis and gov spending and taxes will be cut even more. Everything is going to plan.
1 dukey 2018-02-04
The whole FISA thing and an insurance poly against a Trump win .. it should be pretty obvious they didn't want him.
1 KiwiBattlerNZ 2018-02-04
So.. what you're saying is that the vote didn't really matter, because there was an establishment candidate on both sides of the ballot?
Are you sure that's what you meant to say?
Or are you trying to imply that Clinton was the anti-establishment candidate and your votes didn't matter because the establishment candidate won anyway?
I'm not really sure you know what you're saying.
1 Swatman 2018-02-04
What he is saying is the DNC hated him and the republican establishment hated him even more. Romney came out just to talk shit about him and went back into his troll hole. Multiple high ranking Republicans came out against him to support other candidates and that didn't even work. The rnc didn't even want to fund him. His funding was mostly grass roots and his own marketing. That's what he means.
1 truspiracy 2018-02-04
How about this? The most discredited war mongering Republicans and the corporate Koch brothers made high profile statements opposing Donald Trump for the specific purpose of feeding the "outsider" LARP.
4D chess, man (but really just grade school posturing).
1 Richie209 2018-02-04
It's theater.
1 YakuzaMachine 2018-02-04
So I'm a moron for thinking the Gop didn't want him but scrambled to figure out how to use him? How about don't say things like that because once you insult people they tend to think the rest of your words have as much significance as a cunt hair in the wind.
1 YakuzaMachine 2018-02-04
So I'm a moron for thinking the Gop didn't want him but scrambled to figure out how to use him? How about don't say things like that because once you insult people they tend to think the rest of your words have as much significance as a cunt hair in the wind.
1 Loktharion 2018-02-04
Which is why we just need a benevolent AI to rule us. We could essentially create god, if people can let go of their hubris.
1 SupaZupa 2018-02-04
Whoah there, slow down. I like my hubris! I'm not going to swap that to be told what to do by a machine.
AI is useful for a lot but I prefer my bosses human, thus replaceable.
Imagine a bad bit of coding after a microsoft update, the possibility of harm and destruction.
1 KiwiBattlerNZ 2018-02-04
Ah... the hubris of think mere men could program an infallible AI.
1 HunterJJ 2018-02-04
True, but maybe we could create an AI capable of building it.
1 pcpmasterrace 2018-02-04
Tay.ai is my god!
1 fraGgulty 2018-02-04
Bad bot
1 Red-Vagabond 2018-02-04
"Let's bring back crucifixions. A form of capital punishment the Christians and Jews of America can really appreciate. And I'd go a little further, I'd crucify people upside-down. Like Saint Peter, feet up, head down. And naked. I'd have naked upside-down crucifixions on TV once a week at halftime on the Monday Night Football game! Halftime! Monday Night! The Monday Night Crucifixions! You'd have people tuning in, don't even care about Football! Wouldn't you like to hear Dan Dierdorf explain why the nails have to go in at a certain angle? And I'll guarantee you one thing. You start executing- you start nailing one white banker per week to a big wooden cross on national TV, you're going to see that drug traffic begin to slow down pretty fucking quick. Pretty fucking quick- you won't even be able to buy drugs in schools and prisons anymore!"
-George Carlin
1 grndzro4645 2018-02-04
I like your halftime a hell of a lot more than Justin Timberlake.
1 UncleTedGenneric 2018-02-04
I don't know, man.
Apparently JT likes this halftime idea quite a bit.
1 filmfiend999 2018-02-04
Yeah what's his deal, again? Is he a wannabe black R&B singer or a wannabe cowboy or what?
1 iceberg_sweats 2018-02-04
I don't think he's a wannabe anything.. the guy is massively successful
1 filmfiend999 2018-02-04
True, but he seems to have identity issues.
1 DoEyeNoU 2018-02-04
That tends to happen to many people as we approach 40.
1 MNMingler 2018-02-04
How so?
1 Yohnfox 2018-02-04
Did you guys hear about how his soul is right behind his left pocket on his flannel?
1 WEEEIRD 2018-02-04
There's gonna be a prince hologram which might literally cause prince to rise from his grave just to slap JT in his face.
1 1FuzzyPickle 2018-02-04
Shoot at least we have a chance to see some tittles if JT is performing.
1 Nashenal 2018-02-04
I’m here from the future. No memorable titties
1 Splub 2018-02-04
It's harsh but honestly as long as the government isn't cruel to those who don't break the law it'd work.
1 Zarathasstra 2018-02-04
And it’s not as bad as what the government does secretly on a daily basis to children in Yemen and Afghanistan
1 kirkom 2018-02-04
Because governments never execute innocent people
1 penornelson 2018-02-04
Wow that's properly retarded
1 GoodLuckSolomon 2018-02-04
And obviously literal
1 activeterror 2018-02-04
How is he meant to read it any other way? And I doubt he went on this spiel about crucifixion if it wasn't to be taken seriously.
1 Zap_Powerz 2018-02-04
if only.
1 TheWiredWorld 2018-02-04
((((White banker))))
1 _SHUTTHEFUCKUP_DONNY 2018-02-04
Funny... I read this and didn't even bat an eye at that statement. I forgot I was white scum. Shame on me.
1 DirtyBojanglez 2018-02-04
Rich white people are scum; poor white people are dumb
1 DragonflyGrrl 2018-02-04
Whew, good thing I'm middle class!
eye roll
1 Smiley_Iris 2018-02-04
Dumb scum?
1 Smiley_Iris 2018-02-04
Dumb scum?
1 Smiley_Iris 2018-02-04
Dumb scum?
1 defiantketchup 2018-02-04
So this is why they had him killed.
1 MarinTaranu 2018-02-04
I would like to see a cross-carrying race, and the winner gets to get crucified head-up, but all the other losers, head down and used for archery targets.
1 ChillVibesMan 2018-02-04
If anyone wants to watch it. https://youtu.be/nPun1wh-II0
1 Oftowerbroleaning 2018-02-04
(((white banker)))
1 Trevmiester 2018-02-04
Nice content there
1 Toughcrowdd 2018-02-04
Simple
1 Facts_About_Cats 2018-02-04
They literally didn't let us vote for Bernie, so voting does matter to them.
1 Zarathasstra 2018-02-04
Your votes for Bernie didnt
1 DeluxeHubris 2018-02-04
Yes, they did. A self-avowed socialist nearly got the Democratic nomination for president. Hillary had to change her platform to try and bring his supporters under her tent. She is garbage, but those votes matter.
1 Zarathasstra 2018-02-04
He would have beat Trump. It was a change election.
1 Turk-Turkleton-MD 2018-02-04
This is untrue on so many different levels, it is difficult to tell if this sub is supposed to be ironic or not.
1 rockne 2018-02-04
It's not. This sub is a joke.
1 TurnOffTheNewsNRead 2018-02-04
Then why are you here?
1 TheRealOneTwo 2018-02-04
We are all bots
1 TurnOffTheNewsNRead 2018-02-04
Speak for yourself.
1 PM_Me_Yo_Tits_Grrl 2018-02-04
We are all Carl.
1 TheRealOneTwo 2018-02-04
I do not kill people, that is my least favorite thing to do
1 PM_Me_Yo_Tits_Grrl 2018-02-04
where my quote was from https://youtu.be/9KALzQW2-L0?t=1m41s
1 TheRealOneTwo 2018-02-04
I assumed you meant we are all homicidal llamas
1 Mentalpatient87 2018-02-04
Because it's fun to visit the zoo.
1 TurnOffTheNewsNRead 2018-02-04
So it gives you a sense of superiority to make fun of other people. Pathetic. Most people here are a lot more in touch with reality than you.
1 LemonJongie23 2018-02-04
Cry more
1 TurnOffTheNewsNRead 2018-02-04
Ooh feisty. I can just smell the insecurity.
1 LemonJongie23 2018-02-04
Good boy keep on crying!
1 TurnOffTheNewsNRead 2018-02-04
😂 Keep being unhappy with yourself.
1 LemonJongie23 2018-02-04
Stop crying already damn
1 TurnOffTheNewsNRead 2018-02-04
😂
1 LemonJongie23 2018-02-04
1 TurnOffTheNewsNRead 2018-02-04
I gotta admit I’m really getting a kick out of how much I’ve triggered you😂
1 LemonJongie23 2018-02-04
yawn you need to up your trolling this is just boring. You're embarrassing yourself :\
1 TurnOffTheNewsNRead 2018-02-04
Aw you went from troll to victim now? Damn your feelings must be really hurt.
1 LemonJongie23 2018-02-04
Damn that was weak I couldn't help but laugh. Try harder next time
1 Trumpets22 2018-02-04
Did it tho? Because they didn’t let him win. In 08 Obama and Hillary fought it out, and it mattered in a sense of “do you want Hillary or Obama” but they were both bought and payed for by the same money... so did it really matter?
1 thebsoftelevision 2018-02-04
Obama actually promised the world but Congress shut his ideas down pretty quickly, he tried to close Guantanamo too but was rejected. Sanders would've ended up the same unfortunately.
1 OpinesOnThings 2018-02-04
Obama was compromised the minute he grabbed at power. He was a very different man before his presidential plans fully enveloped him. His promises in the campaign were all lies, he became a "charming" picture rather than a man.
1 PM_ME_UR_PHD_THESES 2018-02-04
Spoiler alert: all campaign promises are lies. Did anyone actually think that Donald could make mexico pay for a wall?
1 OpinesOnThings 2018-02-04
The US has huge leverage over the economy of Mexico. I honestly have no idea why people think this claim was silly. Border funding and protection are routine parts of trade deals. For example the French trade deal with morroco consists of forcing morroco to bot pay for and maintain a fortified border. Similarly the British deal with France has long required the border responsibility and protection to be at the cost and responsibility of France.
I think Donald is keeping most of his campaign promises. Though for your information on my bias I continue to be a supporter of his despite his idiocy. So take that belief as you will.
1 PM_ME_UR_PHD_THESES 2018-02-04
This claim was silly because he’s now asking for Congress for the money to build the wall so obviously Mexico isn’t paying for it, we are. We all knew it wouldn’t be true and lo and behold it isn’t.
1 OpinesOnThings 2018-02-04
I believe he still intends to recoup the cost through trade agreements at Mexico's cost but I can see how this is not literally the same way implied by the scenarios I offered. It still doesn't make the initial scenario silly though, it's just a different way of shifting cost?
1 PM_ME_UR_PHD_THESES 2018-02-04
Of course it makes it silly. You’re never going to “recoup the cost” all it means is that shit that’s made in Mexico now...Xbox’s, fridges, air conditioners, etc. will now increase in price to offset the Mexican tariffs so not only will the American people be paying for the wall through taxes they’ll also be paying more for goods. All for a wall that isn’t feasible and does nothing against the majority of illegal immigrants who are coming in planes and overstaying their visas.
1 OpinesOnThings 2018-02-04
As people would be unwilling to pay more manufacturers would either be forced to move and produce in America or Mexico would have to subsidise the industries to keep them. The idea that Americans would pay the cost of higher tarrifs is a really basic misunderstanding of the value of the American market.
And I agree the majority of illegal immigration is not through border crossings, a lot of the more criminal elements however are.
1 AccidentalConception 2018-02-04
Ah the isolationist dumbass rightwinger.
So, you want to limit trade with a bunch of shit hole countries. What this does is forces America to shop elsewhere or manufacture themselves.
But remember, these are shit jobs worked by uneducated people, that is not what you want to be focusing resources on. If America suddenly needs to produce a load of new product, it requires a workforce to do so. Now you have a large portion of your workforce tied to low skilled, low paying(possibly subsidised) jobs creating a labour shortage for more profitable ventures.
It should be seen as stages to a countries development. Eventually you become rich enough that old methods of income aren't worth the time or effort - so you outsource that industry to worse off countries which you can buy from at a discounted rate. So not only does it work out cheaper, it's more economically beneficial to have the lowest member of society earning higher amounts.
1 OpinesOnThings 2018-02-04
I didn't say that at all. I said that the consumption economy is far too valuable for Mexico or the companies importing goods to lose. So the adjustments will occur on the supply side as it does when dealing with any valuable consumer base. Hence Mexico will eat the cost to keep the jobs or the companies will relocate, one solution or the other, to the gap, will occur. What won't happen is a rise in costs for the American consumer as rival trade partners will seek advantage in trade with the US if Mexican prices raise.
I will add manufacturing jobs are still important in a first world economy though, and your dismissal of them as not well placed in a highly developed economy shows a huge misunderstanding of the way a global economy functions compared to the familiar national models. There are always low skilled sections of a population and easy access work is often the best way to raise these communities up. Again this is only to correct your uneducated assumptions about modern economic focus for countries, not what I was arguing.
1 Trumpets22 2018-02-04
Except that the plan was always reimbursement. Said on his campaign website before the election. But ya know, push what ever narrative you like.
1 PM_ME_UR_PHD_THESES 2018-02-04
I’m pushing the narrative of objective reality. The American tax payer is paying for the stupid wall and no one is ever reimbursing us for it. Those are called facts. I know they’re alien in your world.
1 Trumpets22 2018-02-04
Actually, I have no idea and you have no idea. I know that assuming things and stating it as a fact when it plays into the bias you already have is NOT alien in your world.
1 curiosity36 2018-02-04
I thought he might possibly look into 911 and the Saudi angle. Of course, I knew his decades-long reputation as a charlatan, so I treated everything he said as if it was coming from the mouth of a used car salesman.
I was a bit surprised though that his first overseas trip was to dance with the king of SA and offer him 110 billion in arms, maybe not that there was no investigation- but, wow, that's a 180. Apparently, he knows his supporters won't call him out on his lies, though.
It did bring us this gif of Bannon in his nightmare scenario, which is usually good for a chuckle: http://i.imgur.com/9zUV3GX.gif
1 ShillAmbassador 2018-02-04
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/
?
1 rocktogether 2018-02-04
Sorry you are getting downvoted. You speak truth.
I don't know how many times I have heard, "Obama's a liar, he said he would close Guantanamo," when the fact is he tried, and was always shut down by the right.
1 AlaskanWilson 2018-02-04
It’s such a lazy comparison, that’s why. Obama and Sanders were two completely different movements - Sanders was an actual complete outsider running a legitimate grassroots campaign. Obama compromised his ideals early on. He gave up on the grassroots network that got him elected.
To put it simply, when Obama tries to pass healthcare reform he immediately started negotiating to placate the same lobbyists who he was vilifying during his campaign. When Sanders tries to pass healthcare reform he’ll have hundreds of thousands of people descending on DC backing up his agenda. It would be unlike anything you could imagine. Anyone saying Bernie would have just been another Obama is either lazy or not paying attention or both.
1 OmarComingRun 2018-02-04
he could have went around congress to close it
1 pinellaspete 2018-02-04
The Democratic establishment has already rigged the 2020 Presidential election. They won't let another "Bernie" happen. They don't want us to have a choice that doesn't include them.
The Democrats moved the California primary elections to very early in the year. California is such a huge state both in population and geography wise that whoever wins the California primary will have a huge advantage over the other candidates. It will take a lot of money to campaign effectively in California so the only candidates that have a chance are the establishment candidates that start out with a huge war chest.
Watch for Kamala Harris the junior Senator from the Great State of California to be the Democrat's choice for President elect in 2020. Kamala Harris is really good friends with Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi by the way. (Just a coincidence ya know!)
1 iNeedanewnickname 2018-02-04
Oh wow someone who is in a political party has ties with huge members of the same party! Someone call the cops fast! The biggest conspericy I have ever read.
1 pinellaspete 2018-02-04
Well...The reason that I mentioned Kamala's connection with Hillary and Nancy is because you will not hear it mentioned in the mainstream media very much. Hillary and Nancy both come with a lot of baggage and negatives so they will start to pretend to distance themselves from Kamala even though they are the true puppet masters. Hillary and Nancy will ensure that Kamala gets the financial support to win California in 2020 and we won't know about it.
So...It's really great news if you like Kamala and want her to win but if you want an outsider or more left leaning candidate to win the primaries the Democratic establishment has already taken that choice away from you.
1 curiosity36 2018-02-04
Absolutely not, no.
Influence at the DNC: More than 60 superdelegates are registered lobbyists
https://sunlightfoundation.com/2016/07/28/influence-at-the-dnc-more-than-60-superdelegates-are-registered-lobbyists/
1 Mannix58 2018-02-04
They had two boxes for the ballots... Hillary's went into Box A, Bernie's went into Box B ( shredder)
1 Zap_Powerz 2018-02-04
they clearly did not matter.
1 fillinthe___ 2018-02-04
I thought the “deep state” hates Trump. So why’d they let him win?
1 Tap4Red 2018-02-04
because this post is total bullshit defeatist propaganda trying to dissuade you from the polling booth this November.
1 NONAMEBLANKFACE 2018-02-04
You don't think very deeply then, do you?
1 fillinthe___ 2018-02-04
No, I’m not just that gullible and pliable to fit facts based on what I WANT them to mean, rather than seeing facts for what they ACTUALLY mean.
1 Halo462 2018-02-04
I love George Carlin.. I was lucky enough to watch his shows when I was young. Yeah, it was vulgar. And yeah, there was a small lack of parental supervision considering I was like 10; but it left an impression that I will never forget. I knew it was supposed to be comedy, but I really felt connected, and felt like I understood what he was saying. He was the realist, telling the truth that people could laugh at because they sort of get it, but dont want to admit it's not just satire. He was a great man, who could speak his mind and vent about the depressing realities of our lives while disguising it as comedy.
1 Isdatajointman 2018-02-04
Comedy is the only thing left that is truth. Think about it. George could say anything he wanted and then laugh and say. Ha funny joke right?
A man in Quebec Canada was fined because someone came to his show. Heckled him. He heckled her back. Then things got out of hand and he called her a dyke. Then she sued him for 30k and won. Remember this is Canada. People can’t just sue each other for everything like the United States.
Joe Rogan talks about this on his podcast. They’re trying to make everything offensive so they can control you.
I believe the elite are afraid of death. With the invention of AI they can live forever and their memories and knowledge can be downloaded and uploaded over and over. Either they can live as a computer generated AI or through another human who has been cloned and farmed to house their ongoing thoughts and memories. These people know that the earth only has a certain amount of resources and with the invention of recycling there’s no need for mining therefor they do not need us anymore. They only need us for another 10-20 years because the probability of a genius with a breakthrough is higher with a higher world population. Once they have figured out how to live forever population control will get rid of a lot of people.
1 Zap_Powerz 2018-02-04
the only way this gets fixed is if its totally destroyed.
1 ValuableComedian 2018-02-04
lol imagine thinking that people didn't used to be offended before
1 curiosity36 2018-02-04
Singularity is right around the corner, if it's not already here.
1 HillaryBrokeTheLaw 2018-02-04
The atheist rapture is as likely as the Xtian one.
1 curiosity36 2018-02-04
Nah.
I'm sure one of Google's chiefs of engineering would know more about it than you.
Plus there's this. Soul uploading is already here.
https://ssi.armywarcollege.edu/pubs/parameters/articles/98spring/thomas.htm
1 Smiley_Iris 2018-02-04
Ive been single for two years. Youre theory is wrong.
1 AccidentalConception 2018-02-04
Only in conspiracy can you go from Comedy is the last bastion of truth to the lizardpeople are becoming immortal.
1 hifibry 2018-02-04
Holy shit, sod the fuck off, seriously. He was talking about comedy being deemed more offensive in order to control citizens or narratives. Control is the game- control what people can say in a classically-styled free forum like comedy/standup.
1 AccidentalConception 2018-02-04
yeah, then he switched to immortal lizard people...
1 uhyeahokwhateva 2018-02-04
actually his thought process isn't as far fetched as you're making it out to be. He didn't say anything about lizard people. He mentioned something that people have been searching to find for at least 500 years. Ponce de León ring a bell?
1 AccidentalConception 2018-02-04
TIL AI = I can live as a computer. No, that's a fundamental misunderstanding of Artificial intelligience. AI could aid that, but it'd require serious advancements in brain interfacing for a start.
Of course people have been searching for a cure for death, that's literally the holy grail. That doesn't make it any more realistic, nor does it come as a surprise that the richest want to extend their lives - that's an evolutionary trait, to avoid death.
Then he goes onto human cloning, in the realm of possibility, though it'd still require massive advancements in tech. not only that, but it'd also require massive advancements in order to switch bodies.
Then he goes onto recycling, which in his world is 100% perfect and doesn't require mining anymore.
Then he mentions the elite will have no need for us in 20 years. Possible, but it'll be because of advanced robotics rather than a miraculous breakthrough.
It's not far fetched if you own a time machine. And saying that isn't that far fetched as scientists are working on it as we speak, gotta be close - right? /s.
Everything he says requires sci-fi level breakthroughs in the next 20 years. We're close to the tech singularity, but no where near 20 years close.
1 uhyeahokwhateva 2018-02-04
Then claim his time frame and such is off opposed to writing it off as speaking about lizard people and shit. You try that? You did to my reply. Why?
1 AccidentalConception 2018-02-04
To ridicule the absurdity of his claims. I was mocking him for his moronic beliefs.
1 DragonflyGrrl 2018-02-04
And only made yourself look moronic in the process.
1 hifibry 2018-02-04
And thus deserve mockery and ridicule yourself. Gaslighting and shit?? gtfo
1 AccidentalConception 2018-02-04
You're right, laughing at the dumb cunt spouting shit about immortal rich people is gaslighting and I'm the idiot here.
Fuck me this sub is moronic.
1 hifibry 2018-02-04
Can you fuck off, yet? Saying someone is talking about lizard people is a common technique and it can definitely be considered gaslighting, as in they're made to think they're crazy for what they're discussing.
1 AccidentalConception 2018-02-04
Fair enough, I'll concede he should think he's crazy for thinking that.
Conspiracy theories like his are the reason credible theories are laughed at. You can sit there and spout nonsense, or you can use some brain power to think about what you're suggesting.
I'm not attacking him for 'that'd be way too complex to pull off' or 'too many people involved' reasons or any other typical avenue of discrediting theories. I'm saying that person has no idea what he's talking about based on conclusions and assumptions they make on technology, so their argument is fuelled by ignorance.
1 hifibry 2018-02-04
“Fair enough” R.I.P. my fucking patience.
You don’t concede SHIT, you discuss nothing.
There was nothing substantial enough in their post for you to form an opinion on the poster’s knowledge of AI/consciousness sciences. How can you say anything is fuelled by ignorance when your own posts are just examples of trite idiocy fuelled by ignorance under the guise of the oh so woke realist. Get lost
1 AccidentalConception 2018-02-04
How about the fact that he thinks AI means people can download their consciousness.
1 Smiley_Iris 2018-02-04
Don't you remember Zola in that documentary, The Winter Soldier? Guy was backed up on tapes.
1 InerasableStain 2018-02-04
The Carlin —-> Population Control connection is why I sub here
1 Mannix58 2018-02-04
Dave Chappelle is going this way full steam ahead. Worth a watch on Netflix
1 FrightenedRunner 2018-02-04
Is he? I have not watched anything since before he "left" figuring the new stuff wasn't going to be as good.
1 Mannix58 2018-02-04
His stuff has more social related issues in his routines, but keeps them on a funny note. Worth the watch.
1 FrightenedRunner 2018-02-04
alright thank you
1 Dog_--_-- 2018-02-04
His two newest netflix specials are better than the first two, but they're all great in my opinion.
1 jlb641986 2018-02-04
It's worth it to watch. After both of his hour long specials from before his show, and his show, I'll forever watch everything he puts out.
But no. They aren't as good as before.
1 deebeekay 2018-02-04
You may have you opinion but I have laughed hard and out loud at each Dave special and the 2 newest at my favorites (after killin email softly) esp the bird conspiracy.
1 KlausFenrir 2018-02-04
He knocks them out of the park
1 japie81 2018-02-04
Check out Steven Hughes
1 Mannix58 2018-02-04
Will do. Thanks
1 HeadAssBoi17 2018-02-04
It’s good to be here in LA. The home of.... Rape and dick-breath!
1 ukrus 2018-02-04
It was mostly funny, but still had a lot of "blame yt".
1 ThatBoogieman 2018-02-04
In the spirit of this post it's hilarious to see you upset a comedian doesn't like your politician.
1 ConstantComet 2018-02-04
He pointed out something he didn't like; that doesn't make him upset. I like Chappelle, and I liked Carlin, particularly when I was trying to 'find my own voice' as in my college days.
1 ukrus 2018-02-04
Did you watch it? Because it doesn't sound like you did.
It's not that he poked fun at trump, he made fun of people who voted for him while sprinkling anti-white jokes throughout the special.
1 ok_heh 2018-02-04
Yeah if only Carlin hadn't railed against Nixon his material would have been better too
1 threesixzero 2018-02-04
Yeah but Carlin had a point. Chappelle just jumped on the bandwagon and shits on Trump because it's what all the SJW celebs are doing. I'm a fan of Chappelle and not even a Trump supporter but it is just cheap jokes, I like my comedians edgy.
1 threesixzero 2018-02-04
Chappelle is definitely not going that same route. He is just taking cheap shots at Trump because that's the latest new thing all SJW celebs are doing. He's just hopping on the hate train.
1 Mannix58 2018-02-04
So you obviously didn't listen past that to the other subjects. great job.
1 threesixzero 2018-02-04
Lmao why don't you tell me exactly what point he made that you are talking about.
1 Mannix58 2018-02-04
Yah. Im going to do a play by play for you. Just because he hurt your little feelings. Awwwe
1 threesixzero 2018-02-04
Hahahaha I knew you weren't going to be able to deliver. He didn't hurt my feelings as I'm not a Trump supporter. He just sunk to a low level.
1 Mannix58 2018-02-04
Bwahahahaha I knew you didnt even watch it. Sad really.
1 threesixzero 2018-02-04
Yeah, I didn't even watch it. You got me. I was just making stuff up hoping it would make sense and no one would question me.
Funny how I didn't even watch it but I still beat you in the argument though. I asked for one simple example and you failed to deliver.
1 slink7 2018-02-04
Fully agree with this. All my favorite comedians are dead, but he’s one of the few living ones carrying on the torch
1 Mannix58 2018-02-04
Thanks. Proves you know whats up.
1 InerasableStain 2018-02-04
Is there a new one other than that comeback special from a year or two ago?
1 Mannix58 2018-02-04
Go to Netflix. He has some newer ones now.
1 Ahem_Sure 2018-02-04
Voting will matter. With I'D and tech. I should be able to look up my vote ten yearslater in a database and it should be the same. Someone with time one their hands should be able to check every vote against the database.
1 KiwiBattlerNZ 2018-02-04
I guess your school never taught you why secret ballots were important in a democracy. Let me help:
1) So that you can't be persecuted for voting the "wrong way".
2) So that you can't sell your vote (being able to prove you voted a certain way in return for payment).
Those are two very fundamental reasons why secret ballots are essential to a democracy.
1 Zombiee_hobo 2018-02-04
Forget that. I don’t want my votes being monitored. It should stay anonymous.
1 SupaZupa 2018-02-04
Carlin and Hicks were probably the funniest smartest comedians around at the time. Many have tried to fill their rather large boots but it is usually hit and miss.
As for voting, Stalin had it his way, employ the counters directly and they will count accordingly. An added bonus is that those who voted for an opponent can be identified and disenfranchised.
It's a reason many nations' who wish to play more than lip-service to democracy seek independent or even outside observers to oversee the democratic process.
1 Chao_ab_Ordo 2018-02-04
Doug Stanhope, Bill burr, and Patrice O'Neal are the 'realest' comedians I've found since
1 mafibasheth 2018-02-04
I often compare Bill Burr's newer work to Carlin. The older he gets, the more honest he becomes. It doens't seem like he's slowing down anytime soon either.
1 dukck 2018-02-04
If you listen to his podcast, it's more misses than hits though.
1 mafibasheth 2018-02-04
I've listened to some of it. It's more of a recap of his life. He's not really trying to be funny the whole time.
1 dukck 2018-02-04
I listened to just a few episodes too. I think he's doing it too frequently and ending up ranting for the sake of ranting.
1 dukck 2018-02-04
The nevernude guy is pretty good too.
1 Diarrhea_Van_Frank 2018-02-04
David Cross? That guy's a douche.
1 dukck 2018-02-04
How come?
1 PrimeMinsterTrumble 2018-02-04
Yeah gonna need a source on that. USSR was a 1 party state and if anyone was problematic they were expelled from the party, thats how elections were controlled but there were plenty of times stalin didnt get his preferred way in the supreme soviet.
1 SupaZupa 2018-02-04
I must've imagined all those Soviet era purges, my apologies. Wouldn't want to meet an ice pick.
1 Ih8usernam3s 2018-02-04
Bill Hicks opened my eyes, the gov killed those people in Waco.
1 News_Bot 2018-02-04
Stalin tried to resign three times and even Trotsky voted him to stay. Do you think people elect a Prime Minister in the UK? The party does.
1 SupaZupa 2018-02-04
BAD BOT!
No, I'm old enough to know how the Prime Minister is selected.
Leader of the Party that gets the most votes usually becomes PM.
Exceptions include handovers from PM to another or a Party leadership challenge.
1 News_Bot 2018-02-04
Yes. The Soviet system functioned similarly.
1 SupaZupa 2018-02-04
Major differences between the two though.
Soviet Communist (sic) Russia was a one party state that loved a strongman who in turn loved a good bloody purge.
British Parliamentary System is a multi party affair with a neutral (unpolitical) Head of State, which is set up to avoid such messy uprisings.
1 News_Bot 2018-02-04
You expose a basic lack of knowledge of the Soviety system with the "one party state" criticism so I'll leave you with light reading.
"Soviet Communism: A New Civilization" by Sydney and Beatrice Webb
"Is the Red Flag Flying?" by Albert Syzmanski
"Socialism Betrayed" by Keeran and Kenny
"Life and Terror in Stalin's Russia, 1934–1941" by Robert Thurston
"Democracy, East Germany, and the Berlin Wall" by Stephen Gowans
"The Russians are Coming: The Politics of Anti-Sovietism" by V.L. Allen
"Soviet Democracy" by Pat Sloan
https://gowans.wordpress.com/2013/12/23/seven-myths-about-the-ussr/
Liberal democracy is divide and conquer for the rich that achieves very little over minimal differences under a weak foundation of capitalism. All parties in a liberal democracy bend to the whim of these interests by design, and if not they're either not allowed to win or are deposed or murdered afterwards. It creates an inefficient government and a hopelessly, endlessly divided population.
1 AutoModerator 2018-02-04
While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1 SupaZupa 2018-02-04
Are you seriously trying to sell communism to me? Really?
Look, I'm not interested. I've seen the result of every regime that enforces it.
Liberal democracy, as you call it comes in many flavours, and thankfully has a heck of a lot less purges.
1 News_Bot 2018-02-04
Is that what you call persecuting or murdering communists, socialists, trade unionists, etc? How did Bill Haywood and Fred Hampton die again? McCarthy never happened? How about all those death squads and dictators "liberal democracy" happily supported if it meant socialist purges? CIA and FBI don't infiltrate trade unions worldwide?
You have yet to realize that your entire moral foundation is built on lies and blood.
1 SupaZupa 2018-02-04
You have some loaded questions, I will try.
Soviet Purges v Western LD Purges
Some things had to be done, otherwise murderous bastards like Stalin would've been calling the shots.
Never heard of them so don't care.
Didn't go far enough in my opinion, far too many cultural marxists were left to fester resulting in the counter culture war that was encouraged by the KGB foreign operations desk, but hey, that US Constitution even protects the free speech of seditious bastards.
As Reagan said, "He may be a bastards, but he's our bastard, and so in the geopolitical sphere, no big thing considering the cost of doing nothing would have been hundreds of millions of deaths in Communist purges.
Spies and their ways are dirty by nature. So another reminder, the KGB did exist too and did exactly the same. They helped groups like CND and left wing terror groups throughout the world.
How many hundreds of millions of people would have to be starved or murdered before you would disavow Communism?
1 News_Bot 2018-02-04
Hundreds of millions were not starved or murdered. Your entire premise is based on a lie. Cultural Marxism is a literal fascist piece of propaganda-- Jewish Bolshevism renamed.
You're a despicable human if you think murdering people for being socialist is acceptable and then cry crocodile tears for "democracy."
1 SupaZupa 2018-02-04
Sure. The Red Terror never happened. The Cultural Revolution never happened. The Latin American and African adventures never happened.
History speaks for itself. The slow march through the institutions is a thing.
War has casualties. If the choice is between a few hundred wannabe murderous communist malcontents or an entire population enslaved by a Communist Government, as those at the top table would say, it is a cost worth bearing.
You should try selling the clap, you'd get more customers.
1 News_Bot 2018-02-04
Mouthing off events while being incapable of actually providing a source for your mythological death tolls.
Nazi propaganda isn't history and you are as I described, a despicable hypocrite. You get hoodwinked by propaganda and immediately think yourself so superior you have the right to murder someone and call it "democracy."
1 SupaZupa 2018-02-04
For all of "Liberal Democracy's" faults, free elections is much better than having a government intent on enforcing an ideology at all costs, which usually involves murdering more than just truth.
Read George Orwell and leave me alone. I'm not interested in commies or their bull crap, if I was, I'd be on the commie threads.
1 News_Bot 2018-02-04
How many of these "free elections" has America interfered in, let alone it's own?
Orwell was a propagandist by trade.
1 SupaZupa 2018-02-04
Geopolitics is a horrible game but a necessary one. Dead commies are better than commies killing or enslaving 30% to 60% of the population.
With an ideology built on class hatred, it always ends up with bloodletting on industrial scales.
The late great, one of a kind, George Orwell
George Orwell fought side by side with the Socialist and Commie factions out in Spain against Franco. He saw first hand how the left always eats itself.
So of your worst accusation is that the great late Orwell was no more than his trade, you really must dislike him.
Communist Icons
Stalin was a murderous tyrant.
Che Guevara, Communist poster boy.
Chairman Mao and his Communist inspired killing sprees.
1 News_Bot 2018-02-04
Commies never killed or enslaved 30% to 60% of any population at any point in history. Stop parroting fascist propaganda without citing sources.
Capitalism is built on class hatred, as was feudalism before it. Capitalism itself is a necessary stepping stone to socialism, but I doubt you've read Marx. Communism is a classless society, so there inherently cannot be any class hatred. Socialism is largely based on the "dictatorship of the proletariat" but can you please explain how this is worse than our current dictatorship of the bourgeoise? As you so arrogantly say, "geopolitics is a horrible game but a necessary one."
Orwell fought with anarchists. He never saw anything firsthand as it was not a "communist" war. In fact most anarchists today would blame the USSR for why they lost despite them reverting to tribalism quite quickly.
I don't dislike Orwell, but a propagandist is a propagandist and he was paid to inform on socialists. That doesn't make his literal fiction into reality, to say the least.
Stalin was not a murderous tyrant, nor were Guevara or Mao. Historical revisionism might provide validation but it helping you feel good doesn't make it true.
1 SupaZupa 2018-02-04
You are an out and out liar and apologist for an ideology built on oppression.
You are worse than a propagandist, you are a cheer leading supporter of class war and state control.
I've actually spoken to many who have actually lived under Communist oppressed societies. I even know a East Germany lady who fled East Berlin under a hail of bullets.
So don't you try and lie your cause to me.
1 News_Bot 2018-02-04
Demonization is really all your entire belief system relies on, so please don't attempt to lecture.
Ahh the old "I know someone!" nonsense.
1 SupaZupa 2018-02-04
What nation do you live in then?
1 News_Bot 2018-02-04
Ireland.
1 SupaZupa 2018-02-04
So your experience of communism is... what?
1 News_Bot 2018-02-04
https://www.historyireland.com/20th-century-contemporary-history/irish-socialist-republicanism-1909-36/
My country has a strong socialist history, as did the US until it was exterminated. There was this little conflict called "The Troubles" that Northern Ireland in particular still suffers from mass shellshock from. Living in a country where white people are racist and murder other white people grants one an interesting perspective.
1 SupaZupa 2018-02-04
So even after suffering political and sectarian violence, you still reckon that an all powerful state controlled by a Communist party is the way forward?
Wow. You really want to try and have another revolution?
Please read Orwell's misadventure in Spain. Please.
1 News_Bot 2018-02-04
There is no "all powerful state" under socialism since true socialism is unachievable without true social democracy (which the USSR had), and communism is a stateless society yet to exist. This is mythology that only demonstrates your basic lack of actual tangible knowledge. You keep parroting someone else's propaganda and it's so blatant.
I don't want an anarchist revolution, no. Though I sympathize with the cause, anarchism has no practical application on a societal level though I would advocate for it in certain circumstances because I believe strongly in the individual, but I also believe strongly in society. I'd rather more along the lines of the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution that made the USSR the first in the world to give women the right to vote and ensure employees could unionize, among other little things like raising life expectancy by 65%, eradicating unemployment and homelessness, ending famine that occurred like clockwork under the Tsar and kulaks, achieved full literacy from a starting point of 56%, eliminated the gender pay gap, heavily subsidized child daycare, etc.
1 SupaZupa 2018-02-04
Stability and slow progress towards a better way works.
Giving the State the power to decide everything is a recipe for disaster.
I don't care about communism, and I don't want to be arguing about it for it is a subject I have little care for.
Leave me be. The best you could ever hope from me is indifference, all this pushing and I will end up the next Franco.
Propaganda is many faced.
I don't buy in the government will provide, whatever flavour they offer it in, I prefer the checks and balances that only personal liberty can provide.
So, goodnight my Red Irish friend.
1 News_Bot 2018-02-04
There is no stability or "slow progress" under capitalism. It inhibits progress at every single turn and is completely unstable, or do you conveniently forget every time it crashes and burns and has to be bailed out by the state and the taxpayer?
If you keep peddling John Birch Society bullshit I'm going to keep calling it out. You're a shamelessly ignorant hypocrite who pretends to care about democracy almost as much as the U.S. Government.
1 SupaZupa 2018-02-04
That's it, I warned you, I bloody well warned you.
I am now officially against communism.
It is a vile ideology and any who try to install such a system of governance over me will find a bayonet in their neck.
1 News_Bot 2018-02-04
Well aren't you just a big man.
Communism isn't a system of governance. Government functions as government functions, only led by the people directly and not bought and paid for con artists.
1 SupaZupa 2018-02-04
Socialism needs to be enforced. This enforcement leads to fascism. This fascism leads to death camps.
The end. Literally.
1 News_Bot 2018-02-04
Capitalism needs to be enforced and actually leads to fascism. I would rather enforce upon exploiters than the working person, for whom capitalism does not care about and only the struggles of socialists have garnered even decent working conditions for them.
Socialism and fascism are incompatible and there is no crossover, they are fundamentally opposed. It's possible for someone to originally be a socialist and then become a fascist, like Mussolini, but they aren't a shared state of mind. Capitalism is fundamental to fascism, hence why enslaving and exterminating communists, socialists, trade unionists etc and declaring war on "Jewish Bolshevism" was the Nazi MO, was it also justified by the Nazis? Because if you wanna agree with the fundamental philosophy of the Nazis... might want to start calling yourself a Nazi.
The capitalist nations in WWII were hoping that socialism (USSR) and fascism (Italy, Nazi Germany) would destroy each other because they are natural opposites. There is no overlap unless you are completely uneducated on both, which I suspect.
1 SupaZupa 2018-02-04
Glad you brought up the National Socialist Workers Party.
Another left wing mob.
1 News_Bot 2018-02-04
Except for the part where Hitler declared the Nazi goal of exterminating Marxism and killed or enslaved any actual socialists in the party and attested to using the name to steal the working vote away from the communists.
But yeah, good job displaying just how historically illiterate you are with nonsense on par with that loser Ben Shapiro.
1 SupaZupa 2018-02-04
Hitler was after the international bankers, a very similar theme on the left wing.
1 News_Bot 2018-02-04
Nonsense.
1 SupaZupa 2018-02-04
One party states, communist, fascist, capitalist or somewhere in between, all share the same tendencies.
Make a political scapegoat, seize power, keep power, death camps and war.
1 News_Bot 2018-02-04
None of that happened in the USSR, you are still lacking an argument.
1 SupaZupa 2018-02-04
Get this through your commie infected skull.
The only way to enforce any collectivism type system is through repression.
The fact that you can propagate communism in the West is testament that the Soviet model was inferior in every way.
The USSR model could allow no dissent. That is why hey had a gulag system, re-education camps and purges.
1 News_Bot 2018-02-04
You're full of shit and trying to mask it with blind malice and hatred.
The USSR model allowed plenty of dissent, you need to start citing sources because you are only making yourself look foolish. They had gulags just as America has prisons, prisons which hold more than the gulags ever did, and the purges have not only been conducted by America on nationwide scales across the world by your own admission (it's just okay when it's against socialists), but did not target innocent people.
"Re-education" is not an invalid concept. It is rehabilitation, there is simply no money to be made in rehabilitating people. In your eyes the USSR was somehow different from the US and things like imprisonment, rehabilitation and the death penalty are suddenly unacceptable. The author of "The Gulag Archipelago" had his cancer cured twice in the gulag and had a desk job that allowed him to write it in the first place. Yet apparently these gulags were so cutthroat and careless.
It really is amazing how much you've been suckered by propaganda. There is a good video series on the purges which I'll leave here but sincerely doubt you'd bother listening because you're only interested in things which validate your preconceived biases.
1 SupaZupa 2018-02-04
You're just trolling now. This stopped being funny 5 comments ago.
If I wanted to argue against communism, I'd be on a Communist thread. I am not so please let me be.
You can wave your red flag all you like, so long as it doesn't fly in my face, I couldn't give a damn, but please, this is getting boring.
You're not convincing me so I cannot fathom what your goal is apart from trolling.
1 News_Bot 2018-02-04
1 SupaZupa 2018-02-04
Fine.
Communism wherever it has been installed, has only shared human misery.
If it was a success story, the Cold War wouldn't have ended up different.
I don't need to cite any sources for the proof is in the pudding.
1 News_Bot 2018-02-04
"Only shared human misery" minus all those millions lifted out of poverty and provided education, healthcare, etc. Let's ignore those in favor of fictional people who exist only in death tolls reported by fascists and multiplied by mistranslations or other dishonest tactics like blaming individual men for famines.
The pudding you reference doesn't exist. You can't cite sources because you don't have any, you're just spectacularly full of shit.
1 SupaZupa 2018-02-04
I'm not the one defending a regime (USSR) that has been documented to repress all that live underneath it.
The Berlin Wall was built to keep people from running away from the Socialist paradise that was East Germany.
Now fuck off with your failed utopian bull crap.
1 News_Bot 2018-02-04
You say "documented" and fail to provide documentation, yet again proving you are full of shit.
1 SupaZupa 2018-02-04
Not interested in your workers of the world unite bull crap.
Fuck off.
1 News_Bot 2018-02-04
Of course not, you're an ignorant hypocrite who is categorically full of shit.
1 SupaZupa 2018-02-04
You are literally defending a system that has mountains of evidence against it.
You are so steeped into the ideology though that you would refuse it all.
So again, fuck off. Communism is a busted flush.
1 News_Bot 2018-02-04
Yet you can provide exactly none and continue to reply despite moaning otherwise.
1 SupaZupa 2018-02-04
What have I told you time and time again?
I don't care about communism due to not being a dead in the water ideology in British circles.
So fuck off for you're converting anyone.
1 News_Bot 2018-02-04
Ireland isn't British. I'm not trying to convert you, I'm pointing out how full of shit you are. To your credit, you aren't even trying to deny it and are just bold-faced regurgitating lies.
And yet again, you keep coming back. This doesn't affect me at all so I have no issue replying. If you keep saying dumb things I can respond to, I will respond to them. The solution is to stop saying dumb things and actually stop replying or block me.
1 SupaZupa 2018-02-04
So what if you're Irish, I was stating that in Britain, Communism is a busted flush so why would I even bother trying to discredit an already discredited ideology.
Don't know how to block but you're right, it's my fault for feeding a seagull.
Good luck flogging the dead horse that is communism, you'll need it.
1 News_Bot 2018-02-04
Then why are you talking about Britain and why am I supposed to care? You realize Jeremy Corbyn, an open socialist (more of a "social democrat") is quite popular right now and expected to take power pretty much any day? At least pay attention to another country's affairs before you remark.
1 SupaZupa 2018-02-04
You seem to vary little for what I want so why on God's green Earth should I give a damn what some Irish commie wants???
I'm British and I was stating that communism will never take hold here due to the peoples' love of individualism over collectivism.
You caring or not is neither here nor there.
Compo is a damp cloth and in politics, nothing is certain do I wouldn't start betting now.
As for paying attention, that is rich from a Stalin supporting idiot like your good self.
1 News_Bot 2018-02-04
You seem quite ignorant of history if you think Britain is known for individualism over collectivism. Seems you've brushed over trade unions and socialists entirely despite both already having a hold there.
All that bluster and rhetoric coming from someone who can't cite a single source. Explain to me how you're not full of shit?
1 SupaZupa 2018-02-04
From Wikipedia but fuck it, I ain't digging out the library card to explain to an idiot that rain is wet. Go there for the citations you so much crave.
1 News_Bot 2018-02-04
Robert Conquest has been thoroughly debunked by historians on all sides of the spectrum (and was a British agent and propagandist) and your own source even refutes his numbers by saying it was probably hundreds of thousands less. That's a lot of made-up people. Hooray propaganda!
The purges did not target innocent people and it was during a time of high tension due to Nazi Germany and its propaganda, spy and collaborative campaigns with the likes of Trotskyites. I have already provided you a whole video series that goes very in-depth into the purges starting from the trials themselves, it is no surprise you have yet to watch it. Here it is again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBY_aDd5knE
1 SupaZupa 2018-02-04
I'm not going to watch Communist propaganda (see - I can be closed minded too).
I gave you a source, you don't like it so dispute it, there really isn't much more to add.
1 News_Bot 2018-02-04
You gave me Wikipedia copypasta that can't even decide what figures are true. I've given you several books, videos, etc. You're spectacularly full of shit as usual, it's rather interesting how consistent you are with it. You've been at this for a while.
1 SupaZupa 2018-02-04
Why would I want to learn about communism from communists?
Answer that question before demanding anything from me.
To think this thread is about Carlin, not commie murdering bastards who refuse to own up to their blood soaked past!
So fuck off.
1 News_Bot 2018-02-04
Yeah, like why would you even want to learn about history from a historian, right?
Carlin is the reason I am a communist so it seems appropriate.
1 SupaZupa 2018-02-04
You a historian yet love to sugar coat the atrocities of communism... sure you are sweetheart.
1 News_Bot 2018-02-04
I never said I was historian. You would just learn about history from a historian, yes? Logically you should also learn about communism from a communist, as you would want to learn anything from someone who already knows what it is. Otherwise you end up with this pathetic display you've been putting on for hours now: stabbing in the dark and spewing the shit you're full of all over the place.
1 SupaZupa 2018-02-04
The left always eats itself. Same as then as it is now.
1 News_Bot 2018-02-04
Then explain how it has eaten itself previously? I don't think the US military destroying Cuba's agriculture was Cuba eating themselves. Assassinating democratically elected leaders all over the world either for that matter...
1 SupaZupa 2018-02-04
Only have a hard on for killing commies. It's strange since I only recently felt like this. Not sure why I feel this way. Maybe some annoying little Irish Commie preacher is trying to defend a well documented brutal regime that placed ideology above the people.
Amazing.
The only good commie is a dead commie.
1 News_Bot 2018-02-04
You're a sick puppy and support death squads and fascists.
I'm not defending anything, historical documents speak more clearly than a little man full of malice, hate and ignorance. The most easily led kind of person. I doubt you are beyond rehabilitation though. I suggest trying cannabis and psilocybin. If they're good enough for PTSD they're good enough for whatever mental hang-ups foment that vile bloodlust of yours.
Commies are the oppressive murderers but here you call for the death of anyone identifying as communist. As I said earlier, an ignorant hypocrite.
1 SupaZupa 2018-02-04
Says the guy who defends Stalin? High praise indeed.
1 News_Bot 2018-02-04
I don't need to defend Stalin, historical documents do that for me.
Albert Einstein was a socialist as well. Guess you wanted him dead too?
1 AutoModerator 2018-02-04
While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1 SupaZupa 2018-02-04
Einstein is already dead so a moot point. Plus, don't remember him shooting any unharmed dissidents. Remember the poster with the hair but not being part of the NKVD. Must have missed that part.
Still, let us not argue over past regimes who failed at installing communism, let us look at Venezuela today. How is that Socialist paradise working out?
1 News_Bot 2018-02-04
Most socialists haven't shot unarmed "dissidents". Einstein is already dead yet you condemn socialists to die based on the actions (very debatable) of dead people in a nation that existed decades ago. Hypocrite as usual.
Venezuela based its socialist programmes on oil and did not diversify the economy or boot out the capitalists, so most of the media is owned by right wing oligarchs. Socialism itself didn't "fail." By that logic, capitalism failed soon after its inception and has failed with every crash and recession, plentiful as they are. Why don't we judge all of capitalism on the horrible performances of single nations? Again... hypocrite.
1 SupaZupa 2018-02-04
The ideology has directed led to millions being slaughtered.
Not all commies, only those who try and install such an evil ideology on those unwilling to accept it.
Yeah, if only the ruling party had liquidated their political opponents, Socialism would have worked!
Listen to yourself.
Property rights and personal liberty sell themselves, they don't need capitalism nor commies to tell them how to spend their time or resources.
Has there been problems? Sure, but none ended in the mass enslavement of a population, unlike nearly every fucking collectivism system which always knows best, so much so, that any mistakes must be buried in mass graves.
1 News_Bot 2018-02-04
It hasn't though. This is myth. You also admit to not wanting to even read or consider opposing information.
Property rights are better served in collective hands and communism enables personal liberty to far greater extent than capitalism ever has, can or will.
See banana republics and other forms of colonialism and imperialism.
1 SupaZupa 2018-02-04
They have. They don't. And geopolitical cold warring had many side effects. Those that supported commies got gulags, those who supported freedom got freedom.
Face it, Communism will never be a force in the British Isles.
1 giggidygoo2 2018-02-04
Lol. I had the same convo with this moron. Apparently jealousy and pride wouldn't exist in this utopia.
1 News_Bot 2018-02-04
And you failed to explain how either was relevant to communism.
1 giggidygoo2 2018-02-04
lol
1 News_Bot 2018-02-04
My thoughts exactly.
1 News_Bot 2018-02-04
Literal nonsense.
1 TheGawdDamnBatman 2018-02-04
Good comments ITT. However, here's some info on Nazi Germany:
Adolf Hitler - The Man Who Fought The Banks (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=froTxqKSqc4)
Haavara Agreement ("Transfer Agreement") (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haavara_Agreement)
I think it's essential to note that the majority of gassing locations were debunked by mainstream western historians in the 60's. In the 40's there were 10+ locations in Germany, Austria and Belgium (https://np.reddit.com/r/holocaust/comments/2unh6d/locations_where_poison_gases_were_allegedly_used/coaisk7) where it was claimed that the Nazis gassed people, and there were witnesses and even Nazi "confessors" who swore this was true. Today, there are but six gassing locations, and all are in Poland. Importantly, the Soviets would not allow western inspection of the Polish camps in the 60's. In other words, the current allegations of "Nazi gas chambers" rely entirely on Soviet claims from the 1940's.
You may, for example, wish to look into the initial Soviet claims after capturing Auschwitz (https://www.reddit.com/r/holocaust/wiki/auschwitz-walendy), where they said they discovered an electrocution conveyor belt, blast furnace, and placed the "gas chambers" on the opposite side of the camp as is now believed. Similarly, at Nuremberg, 19 months after capturing Belzec, the Soviets were still claiming that electrocution was the method of killing there (http://winstonsmithministryoftruth.blogspot.com/2010/06/electrocuted-to-ashes-at-belzec.html). Then there are the infamous "steam chambers" of Treblinka, the human soap and lampshades, shrunken heads, etc -- an enormous number of erroneous and debunked claims which are always omitted by the Holocaust industry.
Similarly, the footage and pictures of dead bodies in the western camps (since debunked as "extermination camps") are repetitively shown without informing the viewer that they were the result of disease in the last weeks and months of the war, as supplies dwindled with the collapse of the German state under the barrage of Allied bombing. US Army doctors confirmed this at the time (see the article on the liberation of the camps(http://www.ihr.org/leaflets/libcamps.shtml).)
Next, regarding links: there's a giant cache of material at the /r/holocaust/wiki. I'd recommend starting with a few short videos by a French historian who is about to go back to prison a second time for his research:
Vincent Reynouard: Holocaust? What They Hide From You (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpjqf-vNq6I) (30min)
Vincent Reynouard: Argument 1 - Nothing proven at Nuremberg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChaMQFkqXyw) (9min)
Vincent Reynouard: Argument 2 - The dishonesty of the official historians (https://vimeo.com/90766157) (9min)
Another good introductory video is about the use of the western camps by US psychological warfare units:
Dean Irebodd: Buchenwald - A Dumb Dumb Portrayal of Evil (2009) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVZ_5yWmBRk)
This video by Jewish revisionist David Cole is a classic which many credit with opening their eyes to the dishonest presentation of Auschwitz:
David Cole Visits Auschwitz (1992) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHzWo79dCHs)
There are a few articles which are essential introductory reading:
'Extermination' Camp Propaganda Myths (http://codoh.com/library/document/1170/)
Liberation of the Camps: Fact vs Fiction (http://www.ihr.org/leaflets/libcamps.shtml)
The Nuremberg Trials and the Holocaust (http://codoh.com/library/document/2369/)
Eye Witness Testimony of Gassings (http://codoh.com/library/document/969/)
And there's a short book that is a good starting point also, which is an evaluation of the preeminent Holocaust scholar's use of evidence:
(pdf) The Giant With Feet of Clay: Raul Hilberg and his Standard Work on the ‘Holocaust’ - Jürgen Graf (http://holocausthandbooks.com/dl/03-tgwfoc.pdf)
You'll find book-length studies of the various camps, and related topics, in the /r/holocaust/wiki (https://www.reddit.com/r/holocaust/wiki/index).
One Third of the Holocaust: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dxsVSzL4HE
Treblinka Archeology Hoax: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6D2HhLHed7U
Holocaust, Hate Speech, and Were the Germans So Stupid?: http://vimeo.com/23102303
Last Days of the Big Lie: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIRaYCRF69s
1 AutoModerator 2018-02-04
While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1 TheGawdDamnBatman 2018-02-04
As some redditor mentioned on Communism, Socialism, Comintern, and Lenin:
Communism=workers own the means of production, the fruits of production are distributed by workers on a union by union basis (originally); 20th century modification by lenin at COMINTERN, the state owns the means of production on behalf of workers, the fruits of production distributed to all citzens by the state.
this is actually how the USSR's domestic economy functioned in practice. in the USSR there where no homeless people, everyone was fed, housed, and employed, however none but the corrupt elites had luxury of any kind. stalin was a sociopath who permanently destroyed quality of life in the soviet union, not because he was a communist, but because he was insane, like all rabid ideologues.
socialism=the workers own the means of production, the fruits of production are distributed on a union by union basis (until COMINTERN, socialism and communism had been regional synonyms). in socialism the state's purpose is to protect the unions and the people through progressive income taxes and anti-corporation laws from counter-revolution by capitalists and situations where the fruits of one's labor are insufficient to support oneself.
socialism has never come closer to implementation than social democracy, which is just kinder, gentler capitalism.
despite his cynical insistence on calling himself a democratic socialist, bernie sanders is no more socialist than russ fiengold, and considerably more imperialistic. he is a social democratic capitalist, i.e. a kensyian.
socialism and communism do not address or involve anything but economic liberation and economic class struggle based on combating the 1%'s econo ic hegemo y and exploitation. any social/culutral identity/morality issues, like being pro-life or a pink pussy-hatter for instance, appended to either is like putting a flag pin on your lapel. it has nothing to do with your jacket.
anarchism is the abrogation of the state, the means of production, and property altogether. we've been linked to distributive statism for going on 200 years, but we are closer to pro-property anti-statists (libertarians), than we are to them.
the four political quadrants:
aquistive statism (ecocomically liberal capitalism to neoliberal facism) (top right)
distributive statism (socialism to communism) (top left)
pro-property anti-satism (libertarianism) (bottom right)
anti-propery anti-statism (anarchism) (bottom left)
culture war affliations, both "right" and "left" (aside: restrictive/permissive, exclusive/inclusive are more accurate terms), are moral convictions/philosphies, not political orientations.
most believers in either camp are statist in their personal approach, demanding everyone do as they do, that everyone agree with them.
both right and left economic anti-statists are also morality/personal conviction anti-statists. we could care less what you believe so long as you don't impose it on anyone else. you can be a racist, but you cannot harm others because of it, for example.
we need to stop using terms incorrectly and imprecisely and stop falling into the purposefully divisive, simplistic false left/right dichotomy trap.
Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/5xn5ob/z/dejuj3b
1 TheGawdDamnBatman 2018-02-04
State Socialism and Anarchism: How far they agree, and wherein the differ.
https://web.archive.org/web/19990117030925/http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/tucker/tucker2.html
1 Diarrhea_Van_Frank 2018-02-04
Hicks wasn't funny at all. He was smart as shit, and he spoke a lot of truth, but I have no idea why people thought he was funny.
1 OmarComingRun 2018-02-04
i think he has many funny bits, but yea hes not the funniest, i like this one though https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CGM8t_zSYc
1 dukey 2018-02-04
I used to think this way. Either they would rig the election with the good old electronic voting machines, or they would use the media to propagandize the people to such an extent they would vote they way they wanted. They tried the latter with Brexit, and failed.
1 misterbe 2018-02-04
Actually an Emma Goldman quote. Sometimes attributed to Mark Twain or Carlin.
1 dubiouslyobvious 2018-02-04
Correct
1 Zap_Powerz 2018-02-04
--Michael Scott
1 jjohnisme 2018-02-04
-Abraham Lincoln
1 mddailey2000 2018-02-04
-Winston Churchill
1 Deivore 2018-02-04
-Albert Einstein
1 mcrazingwill 2018-02-04
Marilyn Monroe
1 MajorDishes 2018-02-04
1 nothingduploading 2018-02-04
-- Joaquin Phoenix
1 AlvinItchyCock 2018-02-04
-- Chuck Norris
1 nothingduploading 2018-02-04
-- Bill Cosby
1 lanternkeeper 2018-02-04
-- Mark Twain
1 Reddit_Is_Trash_ 2018-02-04
-- Homer Simpson
1 tamhenk 2018-02-04
1 Smiley_Iris 2018-02-04
-- TIMMY!!!
1 verynearlypure 2018-02-04
1 Poeticyst 2018-02-04
1 cir_skeletals 2018-02-04
-- Vsauce
1 MrAsbestos 2018-02-04
Wayne Gretzky
1 stephenporter 2018-02-04
1 jjohnisme 2018-02-04
We've come full circle. Amazing.
1 Pvt-Snafu 2018-02-04
-Jason Statham
1 occupybostonfriend 2018-02-04
it's still relevant, millions and millions of Americans have been felonized and lost their right to vote
1 FoundtheTroll 2018-02-04
Lol. Ok
1 Smiley_Iris 2018-02-04
Well stop selling me drugs then.
1 Smiley_Iris 2018-02-04
Well stop selling me drugs then.
1 idontneedanalias 2018-02-04
so are germans. we didnt vote for the established partys in combination anymore, they lost it. now they are there again exact the same coalition.
1 castor_troy24 2018-02-04
That’s not true anymore. I’m a felon and I’ve voted in every election since
1 hp5hp5 2018-02-04
Don't come to Florida, but the ACLU is working on it.
1 pandoras_box101 2018-02-04
Sometimes Gandhi
1 MonkeyMcBucks 2018-02-04
Carlin, however, does have an excellent bit on voting - https://youtu.be/xIraCchPDhk
1 Step2TheJep 2018-02-04
Why is ho so cynical? We get to choose between the red team and the blue team, we should be grateful for living in a democracy.
1 CoffeeDime 2018-02-04
She was an anarchist and knew how the problems we face in society are caused by our capitalist system. Check her out.
Come join us and learn more at /r/Anarchy101.
1 HelperBot_ 2018-02-04
Non-Mobile link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emma_Goldman#Philosophy
HelperBot v1.1 /r/HelperBot_ I am a bot. Please message /u/swim1929 with any feedback and/or hate. Counter: 145197
1 TheGawdDamnBatman 2018-02-04
State Socialism and Anarchism: How far they agree, and wherein the differ.
https://web.archive.org/web/19990117030925/http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/tucker/tucker2.html
1 _Liberalist_ 2018-02-04
Maybe in America. We have an actual working democracy in New Zealand and things are pretty neat.
1 PrimeMinsterTrumble 2018-02-04
This statement makes even more sense when you understand marxism. "The state" and representative democracy are institutions by and for the bourgeoisie. They are self reinforcing and are meant to uphold the status quo.
They are meant to be conservative and slow moving by design. But its not a coincidence that these institutions were only created after revolutions. They changed things to suit themselves and made sure nothing could change afterwards.
1 Zap_Powerz 2018-02-04
liberals become conservatives. conservatives become liberals.
rinse..
repeat.
1 Farconion 2018-02-04
A commie who hates representative democracy, color me shocked!
1 RobertAntonWilson 2018-02-04
Representative in name only.
1 sammythemc 2018-02-04
"They" try to stop people from voting all the time.
1 thrownaway1p270j 2018-02-04
That's what i was thinking. Republicans are constantly looking for ways to deny or hinder people's ability to vote easily.
1 Smiley_Iris 2018-02-04
Neh, people just don't give a shit. There's a portion that doesn't even know what the fuck they're doing when they do go to vote--Ive volunteered at polling places many times. I once volunteered at a senior center a few years ago and an old paisa asked me to help him vote for "El Negro." That was actually pretty funny. A good portion asks us what to vote for.
1 khaking252 2018-02-04
Top 10 universities in the world to join in 2018
https://goo.gl/6BEzkK
1 bitscones 2018-02-04
Not true. Voting obviously matters if you care about issues that are determined by who gets elected (which most people do, be it for one issue or another). No, voting won't destroy TPTB or the fed or the military industrial complex, but for everything else, voting demonstrably matters.
1 dukck 2018-02-04
Voting matters. Your vote doesn't matter. The outcome will not be to your benefit. These things are decided elsewhere. That is the point of the quote I think.
1 curiosity36 2018-02-04
I've been curious to ask the opinion of someone who believes this. Do you think TPTB had already decided Trump would be prez?
1 hifibry 2018-02-04
TPTB would have been sated by a Clinton or Trump. Same war money, same dead brown folk.
1 NONAMEBLANKFACE 2018-02-04
It doesn't matter if you or anyone else manages to be elected mayor. In fact it actually makes the point more poignant. Because you, as Mayor, have no power, you will be controlled by someone who does have power.
It doesn't matter if you or a literal raccoon is Mayor, because politicians don't set policy. Industry's do.
1 marquettemi 2018-02-04
"Not true. Voting obviously matters..."
governments love people like you
1 TheMagicAdventure 2018-02-04
If you have been paying attention at the very least since 2010 they have been trying to do that.
1 karmckyle 2018-02-04
I honestly don't even know what to think anymore... When I was a kid, everything seemed so black and white. Our votes don't seem to really count, so why bother wasting 15 minutes of my time doing it? I mean, I did it anyway, but I could understand why some folks didn't. In my youth, I couldn't conceive of a hidden hand that used man's hubris against them. Nefarious types couldn't possibly be capable of outsmarting us, could they?
Now with all the layered deceptions going on, it almost makes more sense that all these campaigns of complacency encouraging lackadaisical voters to stay home from the polls, is more of an attempt to just keep certain types of voters from showing up. Easier to control a person's actions, if you control their mind first.
Instead of having to take a biased test that caters to the 1% before being allowed to vote, they just plant their seeds of complacency, and let them spread like a cancer.
Like anything else though, that's just a theory. Regardless, I'll spend 15 minutes voting. If for no other reason than to do my part to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt how fucked the system is. I mean, if we all voted for one guy and the other guy wins, I can't help but feel it would at least spark some conversations.
1 truspiracy 2018-02-04
I love George Carlin, but he was wrong on this. The money in politics doesn't grow massively every election because both parties are the same. It grows because the party of oligarchy keeps gaining more power over the "opposition" party -- while also gaining more control over the opposition party.
In fact, one of the dumbest things that too many people believe is "both parties are the same." No two people are the same -- how is it even possible that both parties are the same? It's not. This is the theory.
Then, there are the real world facts. One party gave us retirement, disability, welfare, wage rights, worker protections, unemployment, etc., the other gave us virtually none of this, and actively works to take it all away.
It's no coincidence that a few billionaires spend huge amounts of money in elections, and especially since the Citizens United corporate speech case.
1 karmckyle 2018-02-04
It's like the Dems are the ones handing out soup, and the Reps are the accountants making sure they can keep doing it sustainably. Only somewhere along the lines both sides became crude caricatures of themselves, and in the ensuing circus, balance became less and less of a priority.
It's frustrating and sad watching politics play out, but we can't use that as an excuse to give up!
1 truspiracy 2018-02-04
Except that its been consistently that way. When Democrats had control for long stretches, things improved in every area, especially economics. When Republicans had control, things slowed and even reversed. The current people make no secret that their goal is to tear down progress and bring us back to the 1920's or earlier. It's plain as day.
Too many smart people fervently believe something so dumb that a pre-schooler should know it. I can put it up a second time, but then people may either accept reality or reject it:
What do you suggest beyond this?
1 RobertAntonWilson 2018-02-04
Meanwhile, whole statists are in charge, all our lives are forfiet.
1 karmckyle 2018-02-04
Never suggested both parties are the same... only that balance is imperative.
1 TheRealOneTwo 2018-02-04
Our voting matters a lot. An individual's vote does not. This is why millions are spent on influencing mass populations. If voting did not matter, then those millions would not be spent
1 karmckyle 2018-02-04
Yet you'll still see complacent types making excuses to not vote :/
1 [deleted] 2018-02-04
[removed]
1 axolotl_peyotl 2018-02-04
I'm sorry to inform you that you've been shadowbanned by the reddit admins.
As a mere /r/conspiracy moderator, I can only approve your comment and then inform you of your predicament.
I recommend contacting the reddit admins asap!
1 steve_doom 2018-02-04
Blatantly.
Democracy is and always will be fake.
1 FBI-Watchlist 2018-02-04
If voting didn't matter, they wouldn't try so hard to stop people from doing it.
1 Lord_Augastus 2018-02-04
They let you vote because this way you feel like you made a choice, you had been a part of the process and that democracy is real. Physically doing it makes people believe. Electoral college in america especially seeing the 2016 elections is clear proof that the system is rigged anyway, voting is to please the masses.
1 Bacore 2018-02-04
Voting is just their way of counting how many people still believe their bullshit ~ Moss Gardener
1 throwawayacc1230 2018-02-04
If this were true, one has a lot of trouble in explaining the UK's leave vote. There was huge speculation that MI5 would rig the vote to protect the elites, banks, the government and the cat, but it didn't happen. It went through. It also explains how Trump got into the white house. He's not a career politician, nobody thought he had a chance, the vote would be rigged and it just... wasn't.
1 NoobGaimz 2018-02-04
Just like we here in switzerland.. We had a voting about immigrants.. I know its controversal. But here is the point. We vote all the time about stuff.. This voting was some years ago now. We voted. It got accapted. And then they sayd "ooh damn it doesnt work with the rules with the EU". The left are obviously happy and the media is still bashing on it. But i too have to say.. Do you see now what happends? They dont even care.. It is OUR vote.. We "technically" are above them. They have to check if it could work and then we have to vote. So, the entire parlament has failed. And nobody cares that they ignore our vote because.. Well, its "racist and mean".
There you go... Switzerland the so called most "neutral" country.
1 FlyThai 2018-02-04
A recent Harvard study that took place over YEARS finally concluded that America wasn't a democracy.
The immediate reaction by everyone in the world was, "Thanks, Captain Obvious"
1 ok_heh 2018-02-04
I mean I tend to agree since we've become more of corporatocracy, but do you have a link?
1 dougj182 2018-02-04
The voters got Trump in didn't they?
1 resocks 2018-02-04
Yes, but at that point “they” had already won. Once it’s down to those final 2 they don’t care who “wins” because they already have. Between Trump and Hillary it’s gonna be the same shit for them, more fear and war mongering so they’re happy either way.
Bernie was the only real threat to the system
1 [deleted] 2018-02-04
[removed]
1 Zap_Powerz 2018-02-04
mehhhhhhhhh
1 magnoliasmanor 2018-02-04
Thank you for pointing that out. Your state congressman you can see at the breakfast dinner everyday? Your councilman who's kid goes to your school? Your state assembly senator you can get ahold of by the phone? Those votes matter because they have to be held responsible where they live.
1 NONAMEBLANKFACE 2018-02-04
And then when you kick out the slimeball and plug in your fantastical "Politician with Integrity," guess what happens next? He gets a visit from your local lobbyist, who will successfully turn "Your Guy."
Voting is not a solution. Voting doesn't matter.
1 OmarComingRun 2018-02-04
what if they take no corporate money like bernie?
1 wiscomptonite 2018-02-04
Personally, I think direct democracy is the way to go
1 ntschaef 2018-02-04
True democracy would never work. It is anarchy with taxation.
1 clbgrdnr 2018-02-04
Direct democracy would only work if people were informed, but they're not. Sometimes you need people whose full time job is to research issues/understand laws.
1 notcyberpope 2018-02-04
If they don't accept the payoff a couple of goons show up and show him what will happen if he doesn't.
1 OmarComingRun 2018-02-04
idk about that
1 Chiponyasu 2018-02-04
Bernie takes a lot less corporate money than most politicians, but a lot of his "no corporate money all small donors" brand uses smoke and mirrors to make him look cleaner than he really is.
You know how he says his average donation is $27? It's not $27 per donor, it's per donation. So instead of having a rich person give him $2700, he had them give him $27 one hundred times. So his average "donation" would be small, but it was a gimmicked number. That's why he had so many FEC violations, people would miscount and give him more than the legal amount of money by accident. All of those donations in that link are above the legal maximum.
And while it's true that Sanders takes less money from Wall Street specifically than is normal for a politician, it was still a good 2% of his haul, with the healthcare industry being one of his big supporters.
And while Sanders didn't have a Super PAC of his own, he was willing to take support from and endorse Super PACs that supported him, like the National Nurses United for Patient Protection (1.3 million), Progressive Kick ($245k), or Reclaim Chicago ($150k) (Link is source for all three). Even if Sanders wasn't telling corporate donors to make a lot of little Super PACs instead of one big one so he'd look to have more grassroots support than he did, he could've done that (and the idea obviously occurred to him, because he was pushing his supporters to make multiple small donations)
1 marquettemi 2018-02-04
yes and i would add that people should consider voting with their dollars. you can vote for a candidate who supports the environment but if you spend money on a product from a company that is destroying the environment its counter to what you want.
i know that kind of thinking gets dicey and complicated but id still think about it and make an effort
1 test822 2018-02-04
this is literally why the democrats have superdelegates. so if the general public votes in a way you don't like, the elites can override it
1 Mancaveaccount 2018-02-04
If voting didn’t matter then republicans wouldn’t be trying so hard to suppress minority, poor, and college age voters and they also wouldn’t be gerrymandering the ever loving shit out of their districts.
This post smells of subversion and apathy against voters.
Anybody who says voting doesn’t matter is trying to discourage you from voting for any kind of change they disagree with.
1 RobertAntonWilson 2018-02-04
As an anarchist I'll confirm this.
Every vote is a vote for statism.
1 Zombiee_hobo 2018-02-04
Is that why Dolt 45 won even though he earned less votes? Those pieces of shit making us think our votes matter.
1 filmfiend999 2018-02-04
Oh it'll matter in 2018 and 2020 if you don't want to see traitorous and inept Republicans maintain complete control of the government and the ability to gerrymander districts even more in 2020--census year.
1 c4jina 2018-02-04
Thanks for sharing. I'm Costa Rican and today is election day.
1 MusteredCourage 2018-02-04
Yeah but Trump
1 danimalplanimal 2018-02-04
source? I'm a huge Carlin fan and don't recall ever hearing him say this... definitely seems like something he would have come up with though, so I'm curious :)
1 Eddie_Hitler 2018-02-04
I no longer vote at UK General Elections.
It's just an endless, dreary, flip-flopping cycle between the two same parties. One of them will win, our electoral system is broken, nobody ever implements anything in their manifesto and it's just waffle and horse shit.
1 username2065 2018-02-04
IF voting didn't matter, they wouldn't spend millions on politicians and gerrymandering and lobbyists.
1 englishrobot9k 2018-02-04
"They" are the ones who print the money; the cost/spending is irrelevant.
1 hifibry 2018-02-04
If all the politicians running are ripe for corruption, your vote won’t change that.
Gerrymandering is done for local policy and financial domination. Also to pick and choose “your subjects” so you look best.
Lobbyists are more policy control, and exist outside the realm of democracy and votes IMO
1 username2065 2018-02-04
This is a very plausible theory. I get the notion that there is a higher level of master-mining and control at play, it just seems unreal.
1 hifibry 2018-02-04
It only seems unreal because we're truly given a facade of awareness via world news on controlled mainstream networks. They set the norms and expectations, which "deep state" -style cabal, shadowy bullshit antics don't fit into. So it seems to crazy to be real. Mission Accomplished.
1 NONAMEBLANKFACE 2018-02-04
You're so close to getting it!
1 RobertAntonWilson 2018-02-04
Voting matters it just doesn't change anything.
Without voting you'd feel as powerless as you are. With voting, you feel included. Which is pretty remarkably dumb considering how your votes hold such little weight.
1 username2065 2018-02-04
This is a gross understatement. It's like saying Al Gore = Bush. IF people voted for Al Gore more, history would have changed. Granted AL Gore is a shitty candidate, at least he wouldn't let his VP rape his soul with all the shit they pulled. All the lives lost. And we haven't even discussed LOCAL voting, which is crucial and effects are visceral undeniable except to the lazy and ignorant.
1 RobertAntonWilson 2018-02-04
Ok. Voting alters trivial little politicized tidbits here and there.
Voting does not alter the tyrannical kleptocracrstic state we all live under. Voting rarely alters legislation. It mostly offers a relief valve for the frustration inherent to being a commodified wage slave.
1 username2065 2018-02-04
Voting effective saves lives. More clear and undeniable in local government. IF you aren't choosing the right programs\people for your community via voting locally, you a fucking lazy fuckwad for sure.
1 RobertAntonWilson 2018-02-04
I ran in a local election. I've spoken with local representatives. There's far fewer lives being saved by local bureaucracy than threatened by it. Voting doesn't change that one bit, because compassionate candidates are few and far in between and all their peers are arrogant pricks with comfy incomes that feel threatened by political reform.
The system was purposefully designed to be unresponsive to the needs of the constituents. A system designed to address those needs would involve direct democracy and direct action.
Representative democracy keeps the afflicted out of office and away from the legislative process. Hierarchies of executing that legislation make direct action illegal and prevent upwards persecution of corrupt politicians.
I'd rather be a lazy fuckwad than actively participate in a criminal enterprise, so, smoke that in your pipe.
1 HillaryBrokeTheLaw 2018-02-04
Voting gives the illusion of popular legitimacy
1 sneakysnowleopard 2018-02-04
Exactly. Casting your vote is giving consent.
1 SofaProfessor 2018-02-04
This. Voting matters but they do everything they can to limit your options and force you into voting against your own interests.
1 MKULTRA_Escapee 2018-02-04
Plus they have to put on a good show to keep us engaged. A significant portion of campaign money goes towards soundbites, advertisements, and misleading talking points designed to sway us into several polarizing directions. This keeps us divided up and occupied with fighting each other.
1 SofaProfessor 2018-02-04
And they don't even keep people debating with anything of substance. They target people with little pet issues like abortion so you are looking somewhere else when they gut regulation of the financial system that holds your entire life savings. I guess I should clarify that I'm referring to both sides when I make this comment so someone doesn't accuse me of playing into the very arguments that I'm commenting about.
1 Sanktw 2018-02-04
George Carlin would shit on 99% of this sub.
1 superbobby324 2018-02-04
Carlin would also shit on 100% of r/politics and other places
1 thrownaway1p270j 2018-02-04
George Carlin would probably not even know what reddit is.
1 superbobby324 2018-02-04
Nah he'd have folded in and adapted. I think he'd relish with in a twitter account and enjoy every second of it
1 Smiley_Iris 2018-02-04
He would shit on everything. Just pure bowel incontinent rage.
1 abhorrentautomaton 2018-02-04
We have become the 1%
1 Samdi 2018-02-04
We have become one
1 charlieindiaalpha 2018-02-04
George Carlin was a product of HBO who reinforced the message “the club” wants internalized.
1 Debonaire_Death 2018-02-04
I think that could be taken as a compliment given he shit's on 100% of most things
1 pacitman 2018-02-04
Preach
1 NoMercyForThieves 2018-02-04
The quote is defeatist nonsense for people that want to give up once they have started to understand how bad things are.
1 t1me4change 2018-02-04
Every single comment is literally missing the point.
1 Deathoftheages 2018-02-04
I do hate all the cake or wrong Carlin quotes. Show some respect.
1 MyniggaTim 2018-02-04
So voting must matter then...
1 dratthecookies 2018-02-04
Seriously though, do vote. It's absolutely the only way you'll have any impact on the running of the government. And in the US it is supposed to be government "of the people, by the people, and for the people." They would love for to continue to not vote.
I get the protest of not voting, but despite the fact that this sub has been overtaken by a certain element recently... Creative thinkers and people who question the popular narrative are exactly the type of people who should be voting. Minus the real loonies.
1 2noame 2018-02-04
If voting didn't matter, they wouldn't be trying so hard to prevent people from doing it.
1 Brazdoh 2018-02-04
Maybe illusion of freedom?
1 Reacher-Said-Nothing 2018-02-04
If votes didn't matter, they wouldn't spend so much money trying to buy yours
1 FakeNewsSupreme 2018-02-04
Trump matters tho. BITCH
1 FakeNewsSupreme 2018-02-04
Trump matters tho. BITCH
1 binauralbeatz 2018-02-04
b-but muh Trump anti establishment
1 women_are_pretty 2018-02-04
This is the same dumb horse that is trotted out to keep people home.
"independents stay home, it doesn't matter. Not voting is smart, because it doesn't matter. Tell your friends how much cooler you are when you say you don't vote"
1 obamaliterallyhitler 2018-02-04
He would hate this sub more than anything.
1 Thats_A_No_Dawg 2018-02-04
Calm down. Sometimes some of of his quotes are reaching
1 HibikiSS 2018-02-04
Well, it sure doesn't sound like something he would say. God it makes me angry there are so many quotes being associated with the wrong people...
1 Crazedchef 2018-02-04
Don't believe everything you read on the internet. -Abraham Lincoln-
1 LeRedditMillenial 2018-02-04
It matters. Look at the last Presidential election. We voted and won.
1 TheInternetShill 2018-02-04
This mindset is exactly why Republicans have any hope of winning elections. Old people don’t believe this and that’s why their interests dominate. If everyone voted, liberal interests would win every time. That doesn’t mean to say that the effect of lobbying should be ignored, but if you see this and decide not to vote because of it, you are part of the problem.
1 Deganawida33 2018-02-04
kilroy
1 ithoughtsobitch 2018-02-04
RIP GC
1 faissaloo 2018-02-04
Iirc Emma Goldman said something similar didn't she?
1 odd-meter 2018-02-04
Voting died the minute they allowed everyone to vote. Instead of voting for things of actual importance from the perspective of bettering and furthering a nation, now I simply vote to have resources taken from you by force and given to me.
1 cavortingwebeasties 2018-02-04
If voting didn't matter, republicans woulnd't put so much god damn effort into disenfranchisement, gerrymandering, racist voter ID laws and conspiring with foreign powers to cheat their way into office.
1 DrRakdos 2018-02-04
This is why we advocate revolution
1 distraction23 2018-02-04
True, but voting and fighting for real change are not mutually exclusive. So do both.
1 lost_anon 2018-02-04
I love carlin
But BULLSHIT.
I might of agreed with you but then donald Trump became president.
The TPTB didn’t want Trump.
1 imdrinkingteaatwork 2018-02-04
k
1 SupermAndrew1 2018-02-04
That’s how I feel about civilian gun ownership.
Let me say I love love love target shooting and plinking/blasting stuff, and have a small collection of neat firearms.
But
the idea that gun owners are a threat to the government is laughable. Things that actually could pose a threat, (Modern) Rocket launchers/manpads, bombs/explosives, machine guns, artillery, military aircraft, access to military intelligence, electronic signal jammers - are all prohibited.
Your pop gun militia with all your buddies wild firepower- including your custom AR15s, big bore revolvers, Weatherby rifles with the 60x scope ain’t jack shit when compared with a unit of military.
All of those things are fun to shoot, but it’s absolutely ignorant to think they’re some kind of protection against an authoritarian government. How’s your crew going to fare when an AH-64 sees you with night vision from 3miles away?
1 AssassiNerd 2018-02-04
My favorite is
"It's a big club and you ain't in it! You and I are not in the big club."
1 Trumpetfan 2018-02-04
I understand the quote, and it does make some sense.
But.... after watching how the deep state and every globalist /Marxist on earth has reacted to Trumps win, I fully believe that voting does make a difference.
Additionally, the corruption we see in the highest levels of our government is being exposed. The memo is exposing the globalists attempts to ensure that your vote doesn't count. Hopefully someone will hang over this shit.
1 Cascadianranger 2018-02-04
You have some real issues dude, and I hope you'll be able to deal with them at some point.
1 Trumpetfan 2018-02-04
Canadian. Shocker.
1 Cascadianranger 2018-02-04
..... wut
1 easyfeel 2018-02-04
Hmmm, I guess Reddit's votes matter given its egregious 'moderation'.
1 LieutSerge 2018-02-04
Prettty sure if that was the case Hillary b president
1 dongenaroshat 2018-02-04
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now realise that half of them are even more stupid than that".
GC.
1 junkeee999 2018-02-04
I like George Carlin, but this one is kind of im14andthisisdeep material.
1 ItsOkayToBeAmerica 2018-02-04
How'd Trump win then? The entire establishment didnt want him in. This quote does imply that some higher authority decides, as opposed to the people, right?
1 Regan4491 2018-02-04
I know the Illuminati exists but this is a load of crap if they just suddenly took away our right to vote there would be a revolution the next day
1 Chxo 2018-02-04
Pooping matters, and nobody has ever stopped me from pooping!
1 pancakeshakenbake 2018-02-04
You've obviously never eaten an entire block of cheese...
1 CoxyMcChunk 2018-02-04
"they wouldn't let you do it"
Hence vote suppression and gerrymandering. It matters and they don't want you to do it.
1 Cascadianranger 2018-02-04
This is the one thing Carlin said that wasn't just dead wrong, but really, really stupid and dangerous. It's the same issue with South parks "giant douche vs turd sandwich" with both parties being the same. If the past 2 years have taught us anything, it's that it isn't true.
1 bigdongmagee 2018-02-04
I think recent events show that overwhelmingly, voting does matter. This "burn down the system" attitude is designed to make people apathetic and prevent them from becoming politically engaged. There is nothing profound here.
1 illegalmorality 2018-02-04
Like how gerrymandering and voter fraud laws are making our votes count less? Yeah, basically. I'll be honest though, Trump kind of showed me how a thin margin of a few people can determine the fate of a nation. The way I see it, you lose more by not exercising voting than not voting at all, in the off chance that your vote might actually make a difference.
1 Incubus910 2018-02-04
What’s the conspiracy here?
1 inkw3ll 2018-02-04
I disagree w/ Carlin here thoroughly. He's actually dissuading from people being engaged in the democratic process. VOTING MATTERS. If the 99% actually came out to vote, it wouldn't matter how much dark money the 1% pours into elections.
Carlin is actually promoting apathy, and that only emboldens the corrupt who already have too much power.
1 Best_New_Bands 2018-02-04
George The Plummer.
1 Ed-Dee 2018-02-04
It matters in a few states: Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin...
1 zzupdown 2018-02-04
Guess what? They try to stop as many Democrats from voting as possible.
1 truculentt 2018-02-04
"vote between these two candidates that were anything but democratically chosen"
1 Dumdeedoodaa 2018-02-04
Yes but if voting matters, they could be confident we'll fall into what they want anyway
1 CABrock 2018-02-04
What a close minded, vapid thing to say. So voter suppression is just not a thing eh? I'll be sure to tell that to the millions of people in Florida that aren't allowed to vote.
1 bgovern 2018-02-04
/r/Im14andthisisdeep
1 JunkyardSam 2018-02-04
I see this a lot, where people link to this forum when someone else is trying to think outside the box.
It’s a clever way to ridicule someone into not questioning the system.
1 9-NINE-9 2018-02-04
If voting changed anything they would make it a legal - Emma Goldman he stole this from her.
1 ClearanceClearwater 2018-02-04
Confirmed by DNC
1 callmebaiken 2018-02-04
Or they'd try to quickly impeach a people's champion who splipped through
1 Toughcrowdd 2018-02-04
I have more opinions then this one quote, as do we all. This at the least is one impactful comedian who expressed opinions that made us think. That is all.
1 Dorkules 2018-02-04
I have seen this quote attributed to Mark Twain, but not George Carlin. I was unable to confirm whether or not he said it first. TIL.
1 Toughcrowdd 2018-02-04
He said it in one of his specials, he tagged a rant with it. I do not think him being the first or last takes away from how thought provoking he was when pertaining to the govt.
1 androidbitcoin 2018-02-04
He called like he saw it
1 Chiponyasu 2018-02-04
There's a lot of people they don't let vote, either by making it a huge pain in the ass or outright banning anyone who's ever committed a crime from voting in, say, Florida.
1 Bongstradamus 2018-02-04
The most important elections to vote for are the primaries and state/local elections but they have the worst turnout of all elections.
By the time a general election rolls around the slate's already been populated by the bought and paid for candidates.
The truth is our vote does matter. The problem is lack of participation in the process and general apathy has resulted in about a 50% voter turnout in America. Half the country has become so cynical they dont even participate and let themselves be rolled over.
1 vornash4 2018-02-04
I love carlin but he's simply wrong here. Voting matters, just not as much as we'd like. It's a fairly unambiguous truth that a benevolent dictator is the best form a government, it's just that sort of system has no way of reliably perpetuating itself in perpetuity. So the next best system is one take takes public opinion into "consideration," but fundamentally a representative form of government recognizes that people do not possess the knowledge and expertise to conduct direct democracy themselves.
Issues of corruption at least have the potential of being exposed, even within our own very flawed system of corporate news and new world order elite dreams, which is very much a 0.1% issue that they obsess over generation after generation. The fact you as an individual do not find illegal immigration helpful to your own life, they honestly don't give a fuck. They don't consider your tiny opinions to be serious enough to give much weight.
1 Zap_Powerz 2018-02-04
the only way this gets fixed is if its totally destroyed.
1 Zap_Powerz 2018-02-04
mehhhhhhhhh
1 magnoliasmanor 2018-02-04
Thank you for pointing that out. Your state congressman you can see at the breakfast dinner everyday? Your councilman who's kid goes to your school? Your state assembly senator you can get ahold of by the phone? Those votes matter because they have to be held responsible where they live.
1 ValuableComedian 2018-02-04
lol imagine thinking that people didn't used to be offended before
1 Deivore 2018-02-04
-Albert Einstein
1 curiosity36 2018-02-04
Singularity is right around the corner, if it's not already here.
1 AccidentalConception 2018-02-04
Only in conspiracy can you go from Comedy is the last bastion of truth to the lizardpeople are becoming immortal.
1 TurnOffTheNewsNRead 2018-02-04
Then why are you here?
1 HillaryBrokeTheLaw 2018-02-04
The atheist rapture is as likely as the Xtian one.
1 AutoModerator 2018-02-04
While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1 SupaZupa 2018-02-04
Are you seriously trying to sell communism to me? Really?
Look, I'm not interested. I've seen the result of every regime that enforces it.
Liberal democracy, as you call it comes in many flavours, and thankfully has a heck of a lot less purges.
1 marquettemi 2018-02-04
yes and i would add that people should consider voting with their dollars. you can vote for a candidate who supports the environment but if you spend money on a product from a company that is destroying the environment its counter to what you want.
i know that kind of thinking gets dicey and complicated but id still think about it and make an effort
1 superbobby324 2018-02-04
Nah he'd have folded in and adapted. I think he'd relish with in a twitter account and enjoy every second of it
1 LemonJongie23 2018-02-04
Good boy keep on crying!
1 Smiley_Iris 2018-02-04
He would shit on everything. Just pure bowel incontinent rage.
1 Smiley_Iris 2018-02-04
Ive been single for two years. Youre theory is wrong.
1 InerasableStain 2018-02-04
The Carlin —-> Population Control connection is why I sub here
1 verynearlypure 2018-02-04
1 News_Bot 2018-02-04
You say "documented" and fail to provide documentation, yet again proving you are full of shit.
1 News_Bot 2018-02-04
Then why are you talking about Britain and why am I supposed to care? You realize Jeremy Corbyn, an open socialist (more of a "social democrat") is quite popular right now and expected to take power pretty much any day? At least pay attention to another country's affairs before you remark.
1 SupaZupa 2018-02-04
The left always eats itself. Same as then as it is now.