Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

That video is utterly retarded.


I really hate a good chunk of the posters here now that I think about it.
 
That video is utterly retarded.


I really hate a good chunk of the posters here now that I think about it.

At least black people knew when they were slaves. You remain clueless.

You don't like the video? Good. Go to North Korea or Cuba where pukes like those in the vid constitute the prevailing thought. Or just stick your head in a bucket of Al Franken-spunk you whiny cunt.
 


Wonder if Stewart realizes how unfunny he is? George Bush and the war in Iraq were the best things to happen to his career.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
At least black people knew when they were slaves. You remain clueless.

You don't like the video? Good. Go to North Korea or Cuba where pukes like those in the vid constitute the prevailing thought. Or just stick your head in a bucket of Al Franken-spunk you whiny cunt.

Yes, the obvious thing to do because I disagree with something you posted is to go to Cuba or North Korea. Obviously I am blind, and cannot understand the point of the video. Perhaps I need a first hand encounter of such things.

I'm ending this here, I'm not going to bother replying to anything else.

It's better to know when one is ignorant in matters than to assume they have all the answers. Half of the people here can easily see the non-correlated bullshit that you string together, but no one is willing to comment on it because no one gives a shit about arguing with you anymore. Prime example is your retarded simplification of the "evolutionary hierarchy of Platonic and Aristotelian choice". Wonder why no one has commented on it yet? Because no one wants to waste time wading though your long winded diatribes.

Take your Ayn Rand cocksucking adoration and little :cool: emoticon and piss off.

Don't bother replying to me, you're being blocked.
 
As is so cliched and customary for one who wishes to remain in a world of mysticism and non-contextual, anti-intellectual, non sequitur, dishonest integration of reality with consciousness.

Enjoy the fruit, you value destruction advocate and parasitical fuck.
 
Every time I observe people debating politics, whether IRL or on teh webz, I realize most people don't know shit about fuck.

If that was directed at me, please point out where I've been unclear or non-concise. I was drunk last night and I'm drunk right now. The "We Carouse" below my username doesn't quite do me justice. But I will do my best to enunciate my views so that everyone can get it.

And btw, if anyone can demonstrate that Aristotle was pro-collective and Plato was pro-individual, I will bow down and call YOU master.
 
icon1.gif

Liberals(and conservatives too), and their knowledge of history is akin to Yankee fans and Bible thumpers.

Put to the mat, non-Yankee fans and atheists know more about baseball history and the Bible, respectively. It is a sad and bitter fact. Lefties(or Righties for that matter) who openly worship the idea of learning are openly being deceived.

Ask any college freshman to define and explain the nature of the 3/5's Compromise. They will all tell you that it claimed that blacks were just three-fifths of a person. This silly rendition obscures the Framer's true intent. In determining the number of representatives Southern states should have in the House, Southern states argued that slaves should be fully counted. Northerners did not think the slaves should be counted at all. The compromise was that slaves should be counted as three-fifths of a person when determining representation. This compromise on a very contentious issue was not a statement about black people as "three-fifths of a person" in any metaphysical or biological sense. Those who call the Constitution "racist" miss the point. Ironically if slaves had been counted as five-fifths of a free person, then the slave states would have had more power in the federal government.
 
If that was directed at me, please point out where I've been unclear or non-concise. I was drunk last night and I'm drunk right now. The "We Carouse" below my username doesn't quite do me justice. But I will do my best to enunciate my views so that everyone can get it.

And btw, if anyone can demonstrate that Aristotle was pro-collective and Plato was pro-individual, I will bow down and call YOU master.

It wasn't, exactly. It's just that my position is that of an anarchist. I hate calling myself that, because it's such a tainted term, but that's what I believe. I have no respect for the alleged authority of the laws of the state. Our government, and governments the world over, are just different breeds of the same animal. I realize that modern technology would not exist without government and bureaucracy, and that is why I grudgingly accept humanity's need for it. Government is a lot like the gun - essential yet deadly.
 
It wasn't, exactly. It's just that my position is that of an anarchist. I hate calling myself that, because it's such a tainted term, but that's what I believe. I have no respect for the alleged authority of the laws of the state. Our government, and governments the world over, are just different breeds of the same animal. I realize that modern technology would not exist without government and bureaucracy, and that is why I grudgingly accept humanity's need for it. Government is a lot like the gun - essential yet deadly.


I openly accept your disregard for authority and I have to say that anarchy AND libertarianism BOTH have their problems. Conservative, libertarian, and most anarchist political movements offer no long-term protection from value-destroying mysticism and proto-cheating. In fact, such political movements eventually add to disorder and mysticism and the destruction of values. For all of those movements are pragmatic and not based on fully integrated honesty(non-principled). Thus, they serve to tear down one destructive, mystical system while providing a starting point for an even more destructive, mystical system.
 
Distilled to its essence, the answer to your question is that what is best for the American people is very different than what is best for major corporate interests, and the latter has more say than the former in who eventually gets elected. In order to be elected president, a candidate must raise several million dollars from groups and organizations that represent a business interest which is completely opposed to the betterment of American citizens' lives. In order to gain enough votes to win an election, a candidate has to receive a lot of positive media attention and all major news outlets that reach a lot of viewers are owned by media conglomerates that also do not have the American people's best interest at heart. So the candidates who make it to the presidency are the ones who were most effectively able to court big businesses, the military-industrial complex, and the media, something that requires a candidate to not actually want to solve most of the problems in this country and better the lives of his electorate. Gravel and Kucinich are the only real liberals in this race, just as Ron Paul is the only real conservative. Those three do extremely well among the most informed and active voters, but have no mass appeal and are considered fringe candidates because they aren't bland enough and want to change too much of the status quo to be accepted as legitimate candidates by the media or to receive enough funding to succesfully campaign. Of course they're better candidates, because they really do want to drastically change the country for the better, but what makes them great candidates is exactly what makes them unelectable in the modern political system and its extremely close ties to big business.


One of the best things I've read about politics. He hits the nail on this one.