It could work with fabbers. Well, let's say any system would work with fabbers, regardless of its faults.
You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.And the saber-rattling continues. Americans have trouble reconciling losing any war, despite botching their fair share of them.
We were so busy making strawmen out of any nation that's not under our thumb that the general population become cartoonishly xenophobic. We've got Russia utterly surrounded by NATO, which continues its expansion day-by-day, and yet Communism still looms large?
Never more so than in our globally-integrated world have I felt so ridiculous living here.
edited 22nd Mar '11 5:33:52 PM by johnnyfog
I'm a skeptical squirrelSkimming this now, I'm surprised that Tribune, our Trotskyist troper, hasn't posted—has he left the forums? Anyways, he's spoken of wanting to kill the rich, and I can believe he means it. I don't believe he can mass the forces to pull it off. This is a good thing, as I actually grew to like him, despite having a rich friend who I very much do not wish killed. (I've learned to tolerate dangerous ideas so long as there's no chance they'll ever get put into practice, in part because some of them are held by people who I otherwise deeply admire and respect.)
That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something AwfulJust wanted to pop in and say:
Given how that document has more loopholes and interpretations than the bible, I'd say "constitutionalist" is a misnomer. And by misnomer I actually mean meaningless.
Everyone just seems to claim constitutionality to defend their preexisting views. And honestly, what's so great about the damn thing? It's not perfect, we've amended it a bunch of times since it was written. It wouldn't even have been possible for the government to have much of a socialist system given the level of infrastructure/difficulty of communications back then; of course they wouldn't plan for/make mention of such a system. Doesn't make it any worse of an idea, or any better.
Look, you can't make me speak in a logical, coherent, intelligent bananna.actually there is a simple logical way of handlign the constitution. Using pure semantics as in what the words meant at the time th ey were ratified. Not what the foudners intended or what the words mean today but what the words meant in the context and usage of the time.
We must survive, all of us. The blood of a human for me, a cooked bird for you. Where is the difference?Also no. My inability to take people seriously is probably a problem, but no one that matters has ever told me so.
Fight smart, not fair.Generally speaking, fascistic ideologies make no bones about advocating an authoritarian, undemocratic regime. They usually don't pretend to be something that they are not. So yes, while I do not like fascism one jot, I can take it seriously.
edited 24th Mar '11 2:51:26 PM by pagad
With cannon shot and gun blast smash the alien. With laser beam and searing plasma scatter the alien to the stars.I take Fascists seriously.
I don't think they'd be able to justify their ideology on a logical basis while sticking to the scientific development of the last century or so and using morals that are not contradictory, so I really don't think the ideology has survived the test of time, but I take its advocates seriously. I consider them a serious threat.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.Oh, I can't take fascist art (mostly referring to futurism here) very seriously. I mean, bluh
.

No. It's a system that siply won't work. I just got back from Cuba too, so I do have some experience.
If you don't like a single Frank Ocean song, you have no soul.