i wasnt using my civil liberties

[artandrevolution]

http://www.pbase.com/artandrevolution

[gillettecraig]

Ah. liberal revolutionaries. The people who brought you such champions of human dignity as Stalin and Lenin, Pol Pot, and that ilk. Yawn.

[artandrevolution]

haha. liberals.
actually:

[gillettecraig]

I hope you don't think this is funny. I have family and friends who have suffered under communism. People I knew died fighting communism. It isn't a laughing matter.

[arachnophilia]

I hope you don't think this is funny. I have family and friends who have suffered under communism. People I knew died fighting communism. It isn't a laughing matter.

no, it's terribly serious. but you're a little confused on two points.

1. even thought stalin et al called themselves communists, they were not. a communist leader is a contradiction in terms. true communism is more closely related to anarchy. and both systems fail gloriously on a large scale, because they are without any kind of unifying leadership or governmental structure. the so-called communist dictators were actually socialist fascists.

2. communism in that sense is not what i would call liberal, seeing as how it has nothing to do with liberty. there is good socialism and bad socialism. socialized medicine in canada is very good, national socialism in 1940's germany was very bad. it depends on what else is attached to it, and "communism" was hardly in support of average citizen, like liberalism.

and if we want to be REALLY technical, the party we should be worried about here is the republican party. they are the ones seeking to remove personal freedoms and merging state powers meant to be separate. our president today has more dictatorial power than any president, ever. and our vice president fits mussolini's definition of a fascist -- a leader of political and corporate power.

[artandrevolution]

1st, i was laughing at the fact that people call everyone left leaning, "liberals" without aknowledging the fact that there is more out there then the "white, capitalist democratic liberals" that you mock. My personal feelings towards liberals are my own, and i wont get into it here, however,
The picture that I posted was a picture of a friend and anarchist with two flags in the backround that depict "revolution". red and black revolution flags and pink and black, queer revolution flags.
the correct terminology therefore would be "Anarchist", not "liberal"
...just so you know

[pulp_depiction]

So... the real liberals, aka you feral and filthy mannered snot nosed under-grad anarchists and pro-perversionists, are upset that Monsier Kerry, a pro-Hanoi billionaire, gigilo and all round stuffed shirt, together with a coalition of media heavyweights, the UN-american 'usual suspects' and the Soros constitutional white-ant millions.... all of the socialist hoopla failed to drag "The Plan" and "The Global Test" over the line. The left has failed to get their queer make-over on the USA and make it 'hip' like Canada and France. Tough.

Take a long look at the election map and see just where sKerry won and lost. You are only part of a well connected but weird little urban sub-culture. Parasitic and pathetic.

For the times and decisions ahead in the highest court in the land re gene biologies and cloning and perversions and all the rest... the adults are in charge - get over it.

And if the jihad means we have to cop more security, well, what are you gonna do? Round up the moslems in the 52 and intern them? No. So we gotta compromise for the duration. Maybe along the way we uncover some crims and anti-socials that have drugs on their person... oh the tyranny!

...in the words of some other loser, "Shove it!"

[pulp_depiction]

[arachnophilia]

So... the real liberals, aka you feral and filthy mannered snot nosed under-grad anarchists

i am a liberal. more specifically, i am a democratic socialist. i'm in favor of government programs to help the less fortunate. this is the very definition of a liberal. i believe in a strong federal government, which does not restrict the rights of citizens, and does not allow the states to do see either (please see the 14th amendment). i am not in favor of a strong exuctive branch, but instead a strong legislative branch checked by the judicial branch.

i would not call that anarchism. in fact, if you really wanted the correct term for it, it'd be republican: one in favor of a republic. it's not my fault the party uses it wrong.

and pro-perversionists,

i am not pro anything of the sort. however, i very. very. adamantly believe that government should keeps its nose out of my life. it has the power legislate certain things, but not whom i choose to marry, and not what i choose to believe.

even though i am heterosexual, it is the FREEDOM of marriage that gives it sanctity to me. the fact that i can choose whomever i wish, without the government stepping in, that makes it special. even though the right to marry someone of the same gender is one i'd never use, it is still a civil liberty that has meaning to me. how would like it if the government told you that you couldn't marry, say, an iraqi person? or a japanese person? where does the ability to restrict stop, and why does the government or anyone else have any business with someone's personal life?

a person's civil liberties extend exactly as far as the next person's, and who is being hurt by two men being married? how does it affect your life? how does it affect your life if a 16 year old who was raped by her daddy has an abortion? even if you disapprove or think they're going to hell, it has nothing to do with you.

are upset that Monsier Kerry, a pro-Hanoi billionaire, gigilo and all round stuffed shirt,

SENATOR kerry is a war veteran. respect the troops, the people who risked their lives, and in this case was injured, defending your way of life. you can't pretend to support the people in iraq and knock kerry.

and yes. he's a billionaire. so if bush. and every other politician elected president. i'm all for electing a poor person, but it'll never happen. we'll, maybe we did: bush apparently is no good at accounting.

together with a coalition of media heavyweights, the UN-american 'usual suspects' and the Soros constitutional white-ant millions....

i lost you there. what?

and, for the record, nationalism is unamerican. patriotism is belief in the principles the country was founded upon, and your willingness to fight for them. nationalism is belief in the symbols and leader of the country. usually they work together, but sometimes they are in opposition.

my rights are being restricted, and i would die fighting for them. liberty, or death. that sounds mighty american to me, or have we already forgotten the revolutionary war?

all of the socialist hoopla failed to drag "The Plan" and "The Global Test" over the line. The left has failed to get their queer make-over on the USA and make it 'hip' like Canada and France. Tough.

there will always be people who hate us. but suddenly there's a lot more of them. a british headline on nov 3 actually said "how can 59 million people be so stupid?" that's brittain, our friends. the people we went to iraq with. like it or not, we are always under a global test. terrorism is a result of failing that test. had we not mucked with the government of afghanistan during the cold war, we would not have had al qeada, the taliban, or bin laden. our enemies are a result of our innappropriate actions.

you can't see them watching american news. try looking at the rest of the world's news. and take a good hard look at bush's fearmonger politics, and rove's diabolical take-down tactics. we are being lied to, in ways much more dangerous than ever before.

Take a long look at the election map and see just where sKerry won and lost. You are only part of a well connected but weird little urban sub-culture. Parasitic and pathetic.

you're reading the map wrong. just because all of, say, nebraska is colored red doesn't mean that everyone there loves bush. look at the final popular vote, bush wasn't ahead that much. it just happend that there 5-10% more kerry supporters in the, uh, more developed parts of the country than elsewhere.

For the times and decisions ahead in the highest court in the land re gene biologies and cloning and perversions and all the rest... the adults are in charge - get over it.

uh, no, the looney christians are in charge. i would HARDLY call them adults. trust me, as a NON-looney christian, i get to meet a lot of them, and most of them think like 12 year olds. hell, they can't even read the bible right.

wanna follow what the bible says makes marriage sanctimonious?

Mat 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except [it be] for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

Lev 20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with [another] man's wife, [even he] that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

paying attention? we are execute everyone with a second marriage, both the husband and wife, even if it's only the first marriage for one of them.

also, last i checked, i was an adult. i voted in this election, and i am of drafting, drinking, smoking, and gun permit age. in fact, the only rights withheld from me because of age are the offices of representative, senator, and president. how old does that make me? you read enough constitution to know?

And if the jihad means we have to cop more security, well, what are you gonna do? Round up the moslems in the 52 and intern them? No. So we gotta compromise for the duration. Maybe along the way we uncover some crims and anti-socials that have drugs on their person... oh the tyranny!

the security is a joke. they'e not finding anyone, it's just a witchhunt. my local representative election was decided on the basis that the democratic candidate was not willing to fire a suspected terrorist -- a respected professor at her college -- on the sole grounds that people said he was a terrorist. the republican candidate said this was supporting a local terrorist cell.

the suspect terrorist is currently an advisor for president bush.

and they're gonna remove my fourth amendment rights for this?

[gillettecraig]

It's like explaining that you'd rather be called a snail instead of a slug. I got away from those kinds of superficial distinctions a long time ago. They might be of interest to some academic some place. I don't see the need to waste time playing with the texts or the histories. Makes no particular difference to me. The indicated response is the same.

That's like arguing that Kerry "isn't" a communist sympathizer because the North Viet Namese weren't really communists when he cozied up to them.

[artandrevolution]

pulp_depiction:



I was merely posting some pictures i took...i think YOU need to get over it...or at least post some pictures you took. Or is that too much too ask?

oh...and here's another for your enjoyment...at least these "weird pathetic creatures" know how to have fun.

[pulp_depiction]

Oh sorry, my bad, are you upset: the 'UN' in my UN-american label is for those jet-set suits who flyover borders with ease and see the future without cultural and economic barriers of any kind. Your basic multi-nat CEO, celebrity and UN blue helmet types (read Bilderberger, Soros etc). UN-americans. These people are into global aspirations in a big way, ie, not mainstream americana.

My bad 2: Nationalism, racism and patriotism have been morphed into one stinking agitprop mess at post-modern nihilist colleges as per the Gramsci agenda. Don't go there, your delusion will come off the boil way to fast and you'll end up in therapy for misplaced idealism.


So it looks like you could be a genuine "i am a democratic socialist" armband wearing Che wannabe. Unfortunately, come the revolution, you're the first against the wall.... if you've read the history. Read Orwell and Alexander I. Solzhenitsyn. And buy a handgun.


Further, a socialist by defn sees everyone as a brother (global) and the utopian aim is for a global social state with universal suffrage. Anything less than universal suffrage for all of voting age would be socially unjust and taint the whole movement.

So, lets have at it. Lets do a hyperthetical with the practicalities. Say we go for it, say your revolution comes off. The "It takes a village" curriculum and infrastructures are a given for our purposes. In the scenario, religious and cultural antagonisms and nuisances are overcome by limiting speech and monitoring dissent. No problems here, I'm sticking to macro pictures only.

Well, next, the global leadership figures out a representive system and adopts a constitution and brings on a global election to fill upper and lower houses of the global republic.

Unfortunately for WASPS of the world, the majority of voters are eastern and far eastern. The USA and Canada (and Cuba for that matter) barely win quota for a few reps. And in the Senate? A few Senators. A tax code is passed thru both houses and the Corporations of the World and the wage earners of the world cannot escape taxes: no more tax havens and fake foundations for the Suits either! Then the budget comes up and is also passed. The revenue is spent where the majority of reps want it. A good rep pushes his own barrow, his party's barrow and his people's barrow after all. Nothing new to see here, its old news, move along.

BUT after the first 100 days of the grand global plan.... it turns out, rather obviously in hindsight, that the bulk of revenue is from economically powerful electorates and the expenditure goes to electorates in the least powerful. In simple terms, your average North American wage earner pays tax but gets no return. "Tyranny of the majority" perhaps? This is a transparent republic with no jerrymander as I said. Its only just.

It may wash, but I think its a delusion.

We've gone full circle back to the "No taxation without representation" sitrep.

A global UN equitable republic? A false flag. No peace going there. Centralism corrupts and absolute centralism corrupts absolutely. I guarantee the utopian ideal will fail any "Global Test".

Oh, a PS: if you know evangelical christianity so well... beware, it not a sign of emotional stability to be mocking The Word.

[matiasasun]

All I want to say is Kissinger.

Matias, Chile

[arachnophilia]

Oh sorry, my bad, are you upset: the 'UN' in my UN-american label is for those jet-set suits who flyover borders with ease and see the future without cultural and economic barriers of any kind. Your basic multi-nat CEO, celebrity and UN blue helmet types (read Bilderberger, Soros etc). UN-americans. These people are into global aspirations in a big way, ie, not mainstream americana.

no. i'm not upset. i defined for you what i think it means to be an american. however, aspiring to be a multinational ceo is a goal of the party you're supporting. tell me how dick cheney is mainstream americana? he's a fascist, according to mussolini's deifnition. he's a ceo of a multi-national corporation. there's your unamerican.

i'm in support of america, helping the people at the bottom. i live in florida, and i spent a week without power after frances. it's better than being dead, or loosing everything, yes. but at the same time, we're building power stations in iraq, when america needs them. is that american? is our president? is our vice president? is haliburton?

My bad 2: Nationalism, racism and patriotism have been morphed into one stinking agitprop mess at post-modern nihilist colleges as per the Gramsci agenda. Don't go there, your delusion will come off the boil way to fast and you'll end up in therapy for misplaced idealism.

actually, i went to a post-modern nihilistic college. one of the first things we learned is the distinction between patriotism and nationalism. appaently, it's you who never learned it. i'm a patriot. you're a nationalist.

So it looks like you could be a genuine "i am a democratic socialist" armband wearing Che wannabe. Unfortunately, come the revolution, you're the first against the wall.... if you've read the history. Read Orwell and Alexander I. Solzhenitsyn. And buy a handgun.

i've read orwell. but not che. i don't like che. hey, let's market his face. and i know the history -- i'm NOT for a revolution, and i am NOT a communist or a socialist -- i'm a DEMOCRAT who believes in social welfare. i believe in the system this country was founded upon, not the system the president would like.

Further, a socialist by defn sees everyone as a brother (global) and the utopian aim is for a global social state with universal suffrage. Anything less than universal suffrage for all of voting age would be socially unjust and taint the whole movement.

look up what a democratic socialist is. i've just defined it twice.

So, lets have at it. Lets do a hyperthetical with the practicalities. Say we go for it, say your revolution comes off. The "It takes a village" curriculum and infrastructures are a given for our purposes. In the scenario, religious and cultural antagonisms and nuisances are overcome by limiting speech and monitoring dissent. No problems here, I'm sticking to macro pictures only.

one more time. i am not for any kind of revolution. i liked the balance of power the way it was. what part of "strong legislative branche checked by a judicial branch" indicates that i want a revolution? in fact, i would call the fact that bush has the power to declare war revolutionary. compare his policies and tactics to those of hitler and stalin. or, should you be the one reading the history books?

A global UN equitable republic? A false flag. No peace going there. Centralism corrupts and absolute centralism corrupts absolutely. I guarantee the utopian ideal will fail any "Global Test".

no. america. not the world. america. i love america. they;ve made you believe that anyone different doesn't, but i am proud to live in the land of the free. i will defend that freedom to the death, and i am saddened that the government feels we don't need that freedom.

but, like it or not, the rest of the world DOES have opinion of us. and if we do things that piss them off we'll only get MORE terrorists, not less. we'll get ourselves into wars -- maybe on our own soil if we keep this up.

Oh, a PS: if you know evangelical christianity so well... beware, it not a sign of emotional stability to be mocking The Word.

yes. i do know evangelical christianity VERY well. the other thing i know really well is the bible. where was i knocking it? i said that christians don't follow the teachings of christ, let alone moses. if you're going to claim that gay people are insult to your marriage, so are re-married people, and they should be stoned. do you deny the bible says this?

in no way did i mock the bible. i quoted it. in context. although i do not feel jesus meant that we should stone people who get married twice, because he doesn't strike me as that kind of a guy.

although, his teaching is completely contradictory to all of patriarchs in genesis. jacob had two wives and two mistresses, and god turned him into a great nation. ben'yisrael were born from four different women. is this your traditional marriage?

[pulp_depiction]

So you love the constitution, but you wanna retro-revolution back to pre-9/11 and just wanna make other socialist-majority blowhards in europe shut their whining about an america-first president.

So you love the nation but hate the people who voted for Bush.

So you have a photo-promo of some feral douche bag protesters.

So you don't agree with their ideology, but you feel threatened and intellectually uncomfortable under the Homeland Security measures.

So what is your position on US sovereignty and such topics as Kyoto and the ICC? Would you fight for your country wearing a blue helmet?

So what do think of the UN-american class like Ted Turner and Soros and their hobby-horse, the UN, and its fatal weaknesses, based as it is on a corrupt gerrymander?

Anyone promoting those ferals and anarchists better have good reason to do it. If you had photos of the protests of the Swiftboat Veterans against Kerry, I would be way less hostile.

What ticked me off was that Kerry & co would not reveal that the Carter admin covered up his UN-american episode and his Less than Honorable Discharge. Bush had to present his service papers - but Kerry refused to... and he got a free pass from the MSM and the hacks at cBS etc. No MSM like the NYT was motivated to do the story, it was possibly a negative, and the gatekeepers played defense for him. (Some corrupt and shameful 4th Estate you got there). Objectively, any time a dishonorably discharged ex-serviceman makes it onto a presidential ticket, it is big news. Kerry, an outright traitor, should never made it to the primaries let alone the ticket.

Kerry is reviled by most other Viet Vets for slandering them as war criminals like Fonda did. Do you stand by Kerry? Was he your type of leader? Who would you have in the Whitehouse, Nader perhaps?

Me -a nationalist? No, a patriot is all. I'm in the service to defend you if need be. And you?

PS, I hate the feral brownshirts in your pics. I hate their ignorance. I hate that they are being used by socialist fronts as cannon fodder. I hate that good men are dying to defend them and that they don't gives thanks. Sadly, its par for the course when they have had their buttons pushed by demagoguery and american-hating foreigners (and NGO's like Greenpeace)... its very sad. And its a stain-to-the-bone that never washes off -- just ask Kerry. Look how his anti-establishment days lost him friends forever.