Yeah, being able to go work in another country is really only an option for upper class Americans. Doesn’t really be seem to helping our national identity.

I never said that people voting like dumbasses is somehow inferior to the alternative of them not voting at all. It's why we do representative democracy despite it being less democratic.

This post really helped me put a point on a general feeling I have. I'm generally pretty left on economic and social issues, but I viscerally hate the left's love for gun control. Not just on the policy level, but on the level of individuals who consider themselves left being personally averse to gun ownership. There has to be some level of threat of an actual insurgency from the left in order to force fairer economic policies.

If Occupy Wall St. looked a little more like Bundy Ranch and less like the parking lot at a Phish show, I think we might have had some much better policies get pushed through over the last decade. Trade in the old hackey sack for an AR-15. Replace the drum circle with snipers in elevated positions. That would make the corporate big wigs **** their pants a lot more than the prospect of a Bernie presidency.

I'm not a big anti-gun crusader, but that's not a strong argument imo. The police did not show restraint on the Bundy Ranchers because they were afraid of them, they were in love with the Bundy Ranchers and on the same side. Occupy would get the **** shot out of them if they had guns. We are ten million miles from a credible threat of a violent insurgency from the left. A general strike would make the corporate big wigs **** their pants, would be a LOT easier than a violent insurgency, and we're still about two and half million miles away from that.

I'm not at all advocating for an insurgency. Just for a state of reality where the possibility of a left-wing insurgency exists.

All we'd have to do to make corporate America take note is not buy anything for one day. Or we could get RPGs, IEDs, 50 caliber machine guns I guess, but if we even had 10 million people dedicated enough to boycott and strike that would be unnecessary. And if we don't have 3% of the population that dedicated it would be awfully undemocratic to have a few thousand insurgents start blowing stuff up.

That doesn't entirely argue against propaganda of the deed as they say, but we're not Afghanistan or Vietnam and no band of insurgents is a threat to topple the most powerful military by far in the history of the world.

A revolution, also nearly impossible, is a slightly different matter. For that you have to have support from some faction within the military.

And, that's just theory. I prefer not to have stuff blowing up around me.

"The police did not show restraint on the Bundy Ranchers because they were afraid of them, they were in love with the Bundy Ranchers and on the same side."

Not all of them. I know a fair # of PD/Sheriff types because of my line of work, and we frequently talk about stuff while they're waiting for a medical clearance on someone they have brought in. The Bundy stuff was a topic that came up fairly often at the time, and the general consensus was that they were a bunch of ****wits. Now how much of that was over the political aspect of the situation, and how much was over "idiot wannabe revolutionaries with guns gonna accidentally get police/rangers/themselves/civilians killed" I dunno.

MM MD

****ing **** you are pure unadulterated zika virus

Everybody was a Hillary shill except except noted One True Leftist and Jill Stein voter Shuffle.

Describing communists pratices and blaming them on Capitalists ahahah

Huh,

Historically Communist regimes have banned online gambling (ex: China), capitalist regimes have banned online gambling (ex: US after "black Friday"), and regimes that aren't really either have banned online gambling (ex: Iran).

So as to your garbage-in, garbage-out premise... ahahahahahahahahaha !!!1!

And, of course, as the US is a capitalistic regime, it is exactly true that the 'blame' for the bans in the US is 100% on the capitalists.

Could you be more wrong it you tried ???/?

Banning gambling is not a communist pratice? The only reason you have online poker banned in the US is because you don't have a true free market capitalist system and too big of a government.

Compare the number of socialists countries where you can play online poker ( if you can even have acess to the internet lmao) vs free market capitalist one.

Marxists love banning everything that is fun that and plastic straws lol

Enviado do meu SM-G950F através do Tapatalk

Crazy that you'd register an account and then sit on it for a few months before posting such spicy hot takes.

There are a whole load of single use plastics that should be banned - and it takes govt action to do it because it's not in the interests of companies to do it themselves.

**** the planet - I want my plastic straws.

Dude, we were chatting about online gambling. At least try to track the conversation if you are going to jump in like this.

Of course, if we were chatting about gambling in general, your "hot take" is just about as lol-tastically wrong and ignorant as you could possibly be. As per UNLV's Center for Gaming Research...

Kind sir, I'm not laughing at, or attaching you. I am however, rolling on the floor laughing at the stupid, stupid, stupid argument (if you can call it that) that you seem to be wanting to make. However, luckily for you, and once again to try to get you back on-topic... we were discussing online gambling, not gambling in general.

Hey, why don't you do us all a favor, and turn off this signature crap in the Tapatalk app.

I wonder what Einbert is up to these days.

This is a dumb conversation (a particularly bird-brained quote from einbert there to kick things off), but Macau was under Portuguese rule until 1999, by which time China did not really resemble a communist country. Gambling was and remains banned in mainland China.

Imprisoned in one or building one?

ime Communism is a prison for the mind, so... both?

I liked Einbert. Even if he was horribly wrong at least he made a change from the consensus of centrist liberalism of the rest of P.

My commie daughter came home for the weekend and she mentioned a group she was introduced to as clearly a cult. It was Bob Avakian's Revolutionary Communist Party. I've tried to get einbert to answer if that's where he's been, but he doesn't answer about that or much at all anymore. Just saying, it's not that hard to spot the difference between a political or intellectual group and a cult. It's not the communism that's the problem with einbert. He could be posting about Dianetics or Atlas Shrugged and it'd be the same.

Conservative humor needs some work.

Clear to you or her? But don't worry, as dopey sects go, the RCP is relatively benign. People can walk away without getting PTSD. At least that's my impression from encountering them in the Eighties.

Clear to her. She's also not the first person to bring that up to me - she's the second. And it's my impression as well from listening to the Michael Slate show. The Eighties are a long time ago.