Conquer Club

ViperOverLord wrote:

edocsil wrote:

CouchSerf wrote:

ViperOverLord wrote:Anyone that wants to continue Obama's failing Marxist policies should absolutely vote for Coons. In college he once editorialized about being under the direct influence of Marxism. I mean as long as we're going to be holding O'Donnel's past against her then we should at least not have a double standard on that.

Ho ho holy shit. Look at this sperglord talking about "Marxism" without having a fucking clue as to what Marxism entails. Obama is a corporate capitalist, through and through, and any political scientist worth their salt would acknowledge this.

VO makes an idiot of himself like this on a regular basis. He just spits out the drivel he finds elsewhere, he doesn't really care if it is true so long as paints those he dislikes as scum.

Just because Obama has scratched the back of some corporate backers that scratched his back doesn't make him a corporate capitalist. You can't point to a trend in policies to even come close to making that claim. Quite frankly his policies have been much more Marxist than anything. He has taken control of banks and businesses (that is not corporate capitalism) and created bureaucracies to redistribute wealth.

And as for oh he spews..regular...bla bla bla - Join the line of hacks that can't debate so they merely insult.

Taxing the American people to buy up bubble-inflated assets from the banks at face value, to keep them from being marked down to their real market value, so the banks will have enough money -- if they so choose -- to lend some of it back to us at interest is Marxism? A banking “reform” put together by people with Goldman-Sachs on their resumes may cause some sort-term pain to individual banks, but it’s aimed at maintaining the long-term stability of the present model of finance-capitalism, guy.

For someone who likes to groan of the lack of debate, you don't seem educated enough to even debate with. Conflating Marxism (which is pretty easy to identify if you actually pick up a fucking book written by Marx) with Corporate Capitalism is not just an indicator on how poorly read you are, but is pretty damning for anyone who is informed.

ViperOverLord wrote:

natty_dread wrote:

DangerBoy wrote:If the point is to oppose Christine O'Donnell on the premise that she's an extremist then the opposing of her desire to legislate morality must be met directly by legislating immorality. It's the only way to stop her.

Dangerboy, do you masturbate?

Aye. You really want to ask another dude that question?

Not only do I want to know the answer, I also want pictures, video, exact measurements, etc.



For science...of course...

Frigidus wrote:

bradleybadly wrote:Then you should be a supporter of Chris Coons. It is immoral to draw pentagrams. It is immoral to even dabble or know someone who draws them. In fact, it is the height of immoral behavior to even talk about someone you knew who you thought was a normal person who turned out to dabble in something like witchcraft back in the 1980s.

It's not immoral, it's either a lie or delusional. There are no Satanist witches because those are entirely different things.

That is a lie! It is immoral to have a friend from the 1980s who you thought was normal, but who dabbled in witchcraft and then to talk about it on television.

This election never has been about the economy or President Obama's policies.

ViperOverLord wrote:Anyone that wants to continue Obama's failing Marxist policies should absolutely vote for Coons.

I don't know why it's so difficult for people like yourself to admit that Obama was successful in stimulating the economy. He even used the word stimulus to promote it. Chris Coons will not only support Obama's stimulation, but stimulate himself.

This election is about masturbation!!

ViperOverLord wrote:Anyone that wants to continue Obama's failing Marxist policies should absolutely vote for Coons. In college he once editorialized about being under the direct influence of Marxism. I mean as long as we're going to be holding O'Donnel's past against her then we should at least not have a double standard on that.

You've called me a Marxist on several occasions...are you sure you know what a Marxist is?

I thought it was "people like Woody" <mock>

bradleybadly wrote:

Frigidus wrote:

bradleybadly wrote:Then you should be a supporter of Chris Coons. It is immoral to draw pentagrams. It is immoral to even dabble or know someone who draws them. In fact, it is the height of immoral behavior to even talk about someone you knew who you thought was a normal person who turned out to dabble in something like witchcraft back in the 1980s.

It's not immoral, it's either a lie or delusional. There are no Satanist witches because those are entirely different things.

That is a lie! It is immoral to have a friend from the 1980s who you thought was normal, but who dabbled in witchcraft and then to talk about it on television.

You're retarded.

Frigidus wrote:

bradleybadly wrote:

Frigidus wrote:

bradleybadly wrote:Then you should be a supporter of Chris Coons. It is immoral to draw pentagrams. It is immoral to even dabble or know someone who draws them. In fact, it is the height of immoral behavior to even talk about someone you knew who you thought was a normal person who turned out to dabble in something like witchcraft back in the 1980s.

It's not immoral, it's either a lie or delusional. There are no Satanist witches because those are entirely different things.

That is a lie! It is immoral to have a friend from the 1980s who you thought was normal, but who dabbled in witchcraft and then to talk about it on television.

You're retarded.

No, I'm a concerned citizen who is afraid that the Republicans will succeed in making this election about the economy.

bradleybadly wrote:

Frigidus wrote:

bradleybadly wrote:

Frigidus wrote:

bradleybadly wrote:Then you should be a supporter of Chris Coons. It is immoral to draw pentagrams. It is immoral to even dabble or know someone who draws them. In fact, it is the height of immoral behavior to even talk about someone you knew who you thought was a normal person who turned out to dabble in something like witchcraft back in the 1980s.

It's not immoral, it's either a lie or delusional. There are no Satanist witches because those are entirely different things.

That is a lie! It is immoral to have a friend from the 1980s who you thought was normal, but who dabbled in witchcraft and then to talk about it on television.

You're retarded.

No, I'm a concerned citizen who is afraid that the Republicans will succeed in making this election about the economy.

You're basically saying that you would be willing to support a certified lunatic or a conman as long as they pandered to your beliefs, and that everyone should do the same. Shame.

Frigidus wrote:

bradleybadly wrote:No, I'm a concerned citizen who is afraid that the Republicans will succeed in making this election about the economy.

You're basically saying that you would be willing to support a certified lunatic or a conman as long as they pandered to your beliefs, and that everyone should do the same. Shame.

No shame at all. It's important that the Republican Party candidate not be allowed to hijack this election by talking about the economy. That's a deliberate distraction put out there by the Republicans in order to keep people from realizing the importance of masturbation. The witchcraft issue is also important so that people aren't fooled into concentrating on joblessness.

People should be allowed to masturbate all they want without having to think about adultery. Hell, let them jerk off so much that they go blind. We've got Obamacare now and circle-jerkers cannot be denied coverage for any pre-existing condition.

I agree that O'Donnell is a wack job, but Chris Coons is a wack off job. He'll prove that if people elect him.

bradleybadly wrote:

Frigidus wrote:

bradleybadly wrote:No, I'm a concerned citizen who is afraid that the Republicans will succeed in making this election about the economy.

You're basically saying that you would be willing to support a certified lunatic or a conman as long as they pandered to your beliefs, and that everyone should do the same. Shame.

Ah, I see.

Woodruff wrote:

ViperOverLord wrote:Anyone that wants to continue Obama's failing Marxist policies should absolutely vote for Coons. In college he once editorialized about being under the direct influence of Marxism. I mean as long as we're going to be holding O'Donnel's past against her then we should at least not have a double standard on that.

You've called me a Marxist on several occasions...are you sure you know what a Marxist is?

I can spot people that are enacting Marxist policies. If they are doing that I'm not going to hesitate to call them a Marxist as I don't believe in Marxism and believe that it leads to much greater subversion than our free market capitalism system has ever created. And the proof of that is, that even though Obama has greatly been influenced by Marxist influences and enacted Marxist policies, he is too chicken to own up to it. He can't even stand up for what he really believes.

I know people like Baron would argue that you're either full fledged Marxist or not and I understand that position. But I have no problem calling someone a Marxist if they are practicing Marxism. I don't think they should necessarily have to have a full fledged bloody revolution plan like in the case of Lenin to be considered a Marxist.

If you want a shorter answer, Yes I know what a Marxist is. Do you know what a Marxist is? Please explain it if you do.

ViperOverLord wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

ViperOverLord wrote:Anyone that wants to continue Obama's failing Marxist policies should absolutely vote for Coons. In college he once editorialized about being under the direct influence of Marxism. I mean as long as we're going to be holding O'Donnel's past against her then we should at least not have a double standard on that.

You've called me a Marxist on several occasions...are you sure you know what a Marxist is?

I can spot people that are enacting Marxist policies. If they are doing that I'm not going to hesitate to call them a Marxist as I don't believe in Marxism and believe that it leads to much greater subversion than our free market capitalism system has ever created. And the proof of that is, that even though Obama has greatly been influenced by Marxist influences and enacted Marxist policies, he is too chicken to own up to it. He can't even stand up for what he really believes.

I know people like Baron would argue that you're either full fledged Marxist or not and I understand that position. But I have no problem calling someone a Marxist if they are practicing Marxism. I don't think they should necessarily have to have a full fledged bloody revolution plan like in the case of Lenin to be considered a Marxist.

If you want a shorter answer, Yes I know what a Marxist is. Do you know what a Marxist is? Please explain it if you do.

That's an outstanding bit of not actually stating what a Marxist is. Well done. Bonus points for having the balls to try to get me to give you the answer.

Frigidus wrote:Ah, I see.

Not if you jerk off too often, you don't

So do you support Chris Coons or not? I know you're probably not from Delaware so maybe masturbation isn't as important where you're from, but if you were......?

ViperOverLord wrote:Marxist

YOU KEEP SAYING THAT WORD. I DON'T THINK IT MEANS WHAT YOU THINK IT MEANS.

Woodruff wrote:

ViperOverLord wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

ViperOverLord wrote:Anyone that wants to continue Obama's failing Marxist policies should absolutely vote for Coons. In college he once editorialized about being under the direct influence of Marxism. I mean as long as we're going to be holding O'Donnel's past against her then we should at least not have a double standard on that.

You've called me a Marxist on several occasions...are you sure you know what a Marxist is?

I can spot people that are enacting Marxist policies. If they are doing that I'm not going to hesitate to call them a Marxist as I don't believe in Marxism and believe that it leads to much greater subversion than our free market capitalism system has ever created. And the proof of that is, that even though Obama has greatly been influenced by Marxist influences and enacted Marxist policies, he is too chicken to own up to it. He can't even stand up for what he really believes.

I know people like Baron would argue that you're either full fledged Marxist or not and I understand that position. But I have no problem calling someone a Marxist if they are practicing Marxism. I don't think they should necessarily have to have a full fledged bloody revolution plan like in the case of Lenin to be considered a Marxist.

If you want a shorter answer, Yes I know what a Marxist is. Do you know what a Marxist is? Please explain it if you do.

That's an outstanding bit of not actually stating what a Marxist is. Well done. Bonus points for having the balls to try to get me to give you the answer.

Comprehension son. You asked me if I knew what a Marxist was and I answered with a simple yes (though I did kindly provide you with some reference points which is more than you did for me). You didn't request any further information than that.

Now if you want to talk about avoiding discussion I think you just showed us how that's done.

Please explain what a Marxist is and then please explain your presumption that I'm somehow misrepresenting what Marxism is. If you can't or won't do that then I'll just have to disregard this conversational avenue. Though I don't know why you wouldn't do so since it is you that has presented this challenge.

I forgot about this point as well

Frigidus wrote:You're basically saying that you would be willing to support a certified lunatic

What certified body are you talking about? As far as I know, there are no professional bodies properly enabled to make such a determination. Perhaps some people think that if they deem it so that makes it so, but maybe you can elaborate.

By the way, do you know what a Marxist is?

ViperOverLord wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

ViperOverLord wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

ViperOverLord wrote:Anyone that wants to continue Obama's failing Marxist policies should absolutely vote for Coons. In college he once editorialized about being under the direct influence of Marxism. I mean as long as we're going to be holding O'Donnel's past against her then we should at least not have a double standard on that.

You've called me a Marxist on several occasions...are you sure you know what a Marxist is?

I can spot people that are enacting Marxist policies. If they are doing that I'm not going to hesitate to call them a Marxist as I don't believe in Marxism and believe that it leads to much greater subversion than our free market capitalism system has ever created. And the proof of that is, that even though Obama has greatly been influenced by Marxist influences and enacted Marxist policies, he is too chicken to own up to it. He can't even stand up for what he really believes.

I know people like Baron would argue that you're either full fledged Marxist or not and I understand that position. But I have no problem calling someone a Marxist if they are practicing Marxism. I don't think they should necessarily have to have a full fledged bloody revolution plan like in the case of Lenin to be considered a Marxist.

If you want a shorter answer, Yes I know what a Marxist is. Do you know what a Marxist is? Please explain it if you do.

That's an outstanding bit of not actually stating what a Marxist is. Well done. Bonus points for having the balls to try to get me to give you the answer.

Comprehension son. You asked me if I knew what a Marxist was and I answered with a simple yes (though I did kindly provide you with some reference points which is more than you did for me). You didn't request any further information than that.

Now if you want to talk about avoiding discussion I think you just showed us how that's done.

Please explain what a Marxist is and then please explain your presumption that I'm somehow misrepresenting what Marxism is. If you can't or won't do that then I'll just have to disregard this conversational avenue. Though I don't know why you wouldn't do so since it is you that has presented this challenge.

1) You are the one using the term inaccurately in regards to my self, as well as not being willing to back up those statements with facts that show you AREN'T using the term inaccurately in regards to my self.

2) Yeah, I didn't think you knew.

Viperoverlord loses again.
Everyone on this site 1000000-0 Viper

Woodruff wrote:
1) You are the one using the term inaccurately in regards to my self, as well as not being willing to back up those statements with facts that show you AREN'T using the term inaccurately in regards to my self.

2) Yeah, I didn't think you knew.

Well if you don't think I know then enlighten me as to what a Marxist is and how I am allegedly applying it incorrectly. Also I have not called you a Marxist in this thread, so it would be beneficial to put your ego aside and explain what a Marxist is.

In other words, you don't know.

ViperOverLord wrote:

Woodruff wrote:
1) You are the one using the term inaccurately in regards to my self, as well as not being willing to back up those statements with facts that show you AREN'T using the term inaccurately in regards to my self.

2) Yeah, I didn't think you knew.

Well if you don't think I know then enlighten me as to what a Marxist is and how I am allegedly applying it incorrectly. Also I have not called you a Marxist in this thread, so it would be beneficial to put your ego aside and explain what a Marxist is.

Yes, but what you're ignoring is that a Marxist is not what you think it is. If you think you know what a Marxist is then you're wrong. Go ahead and tell us what a Marxist is and I will tell you that you are wrong. If not I then someone else will. I will not offer to answer the question myself, but rather keep insisting that you don't understand what a Marxist is. Why is that so difficult to comprehend? Please stop insisting that you know what a Marxist is when you're being told you don't know what a Marxist is.

In other words, it's not Richard Marx

ViperOverLord wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

ViperOverLord wrote:Anyone that wants to continue Obama's failing Marxist policies should absolutely vote for Coons. In college he once editorialized about being under the direct influence of Marxism. I mean as long as we're going to be holding O'Donnel's past against her then we should at least not have a double standard on that.

You've called me a Marxist on several occasions...are you sure you know what a Marxist is?

I can spot people that are enacting Marxist policies. If they are doing that I'm not going to hesitate to call them a Marxist as I don't believe in Marxism and believe that it leads to much greater subversion than our free market capitalism system has ever created. And the proof of that is, that even though Obama has greatly been influenced by Marxist influences and enacted Marxist policies, he is too chicken to own up to it. He can't even stand up for what he really believes.

You haven't actually described Marxism, though. You're simply saying "I know a Marxist when I see one" and absolutely refuse to come up with a solid answer. If I didn't know better (which I do), I'd say you didn't have a goddamn clue about what you're talking about. At all. About anything. Seriously.

In fact, for you to even contemplate labeling the contemporary economic paradigm as been even remotely analogous to a free market is sheer fucking stupidity. The existing capitalist system that we live under owes precious little to free markets. From its beginnings in the late Middle Ages, it has been shaped by massive and ceaseless intervention and enforcement of privilege -- much of it breathtakingly brutal -- by the State. To adapt a phrase from Orwell, the past has been a boot stamping on a human face.

The State has played a central role in creating the defining characteristic of capitalism as we know it: the wage system. Had free markets been allowed to develop peacefully, with the peasant majorities remaining in control of their land and with free access to the means of subsistence, labor markets would likely have taken a much different form. Employers would have had to compete with the possibility of self-employment, available to the vast majority of the population. But thanks to Enclosures and similar land expropriations over a period of several centuries, the majority of the population was turned into a landless proletariat totally dependent on wage labor for its subsistence.

A genuinely free market can only exist in the absence of the State. Suggesting that an economic paradigm built on government guaranteed revenue through the enforcement of absentee titles, patents, and other forms of privilege indicates that you have no functional understanding of what a free market is. Sheldon Richman summed it up pretty well:

Many self-styled defenders of the free market misunderstand the American system. They believe that under a thin layer of government intervention lies the system they cherish. All we need to do is scrape away that layer, and glorious capitalism will be restored.

They couldn’t be more wrong. There is no thin layer of intervention. Government has intruded deeply into economic activity from the beginning, most particularly in banking and finance, which is by nature at the center of any economy. The web of privilege and control is pervasive, touching all parts of the economy. Moreover, this intervention was never imposed on bankers, financiers, and the rest of the business elite. It was welcomed — to be more precise, it was invited and sponsored by them. Free enterprise, risk, and loss were for the little guy. Partnership with the state was for the elite. That partnership meant favoritism and protection from competition. It meant exemption from market discipline and exploitation of taxpayers, consumers, and workers.

I know people like Baron would argue that you're either full fledged Marxist or not and I understand that position. But I have no problem calling someone a Marxist if they are practicing Marxism. I don't think they should necessarily have to have a full fledged bloody revolution plan like in the case of Lenin to be considered a Marxist.

If you want a shorter answer, Yes I know what a Marxist is. Do you know what a Marxist is? Please explain it if you do.

How was Lenin a Marxist? If you knew anything about Leninism or Marxism, you'd know that Leninism is a deviation from Marxism, not an extension of it. Jesus fucking christ, have you ever bothered to pick up a book that doesn't fit your own myopic view of the world?

Quick note: I noticed you didn't even bother addressing my last query. Of course, this doesn't surprise me, considering what an illiterate twat you're turning out to be.

CouchSerf wrote:Quick note: I noticed you didn't even bother addressing my last query. Of course, this doesn't surprise me, considering what an illiterate twat you're turning out to be.

He tends to ignore people when they exert too much logical pressure.

If he doesn't ignore you,

1) He'll type without much reasonable thought and look even more foolish.
2) He'll type in a reasonable manner but not really address anything you wrote.
3) OR there's the remote chance he'll continue the discussion in a productive manner and perhaps benefit from all this.

Marxists out of 10?