Punk rockers/anarchists and Libertarians, what is the difference?

[Machismo]

I do, but you ignore more than half my posts because you either have no answer or don't want to discuss the points, for example, the post before this one where you only answered one of 4 parts. The best thing is though, you just switched from talking about what you just answered straight to another topic. You're not even discussing the same things within two posts.

Can't you keep track?

Well, I treat you accordingly, or have you not noticed.

My proposals were utterly ignored for days. If your entire goal is to sea lion the shit out of something, I will also treat it accordingly.

Considering I'm carrying on more than a half-dozen concurrent conversations, I think I'm keeping track just fine.

[Felya]

Well, if you are utterly intractable, then there's not much that can be said.

Yes, I am utterly incapable... let me try though...

No, I support liberty more...

Your rebuttal...

- - - Updated - - -

If your entire goal is to sea lion the shit out of something, I will also treat it accordingly.

Don’t forget, if you oppose lobbying, you are against BLM and PP... he calls out someone else for sealioning... lol

[Machismo]

Yes, I am utterly incapable... let me try though...

No, I support liberty more...

Your rebuttal...

You literally just admitted that you're hear to shitpost and snipe from the peanut gallery. I shall treat you accordingly, and wish you a beautiful day.

[Santti]

“I support freedom of speech”... “you hate corporations as a whole”... VIRTUE SIGNALING...

And here I thought that we were supposed to be the corporatists...

[Felya]

You literally just admitted that you're hear to shitpost and snipe from the peanut gallery. I shall treat you accordingly, and wish you a beautiful day.

Yeah, keep piling on the shame I should feel... report me... don’t just sit on the side line and watch me shit post... don’t just scold... put your mouth to action... report me...

- - - Updated - - -

And here I thought that we were supposed to be the corporatists...

It’s not... it’s a game of who will admit to this bullshit... I did... he continued to try further shaming... still didn’t work... so, now he is done. Yet, I’m mad... jeebus...

Edit: ‘Sheldon Edeldon donated as an individual... through a PAC...’

‘I won’t answer questions about corporate liability, because I don’t like where it leads’

#policy

[tehdang]

How is what you quoted not owning it? I like this shame game... it really works on people who have none of it...

Yeah, I also want to deny people the freedom to bribe the government on behalf of saving the children... obviously, I do not want to save children... make that my motto...



You are projecting... do you know the difference between being mad, being blunt and being facetious?

Yeah, you got me... I am now in fear of you shaming me further... don’t forget, I also hate personal liberty and I hate freedom of all kinds... just keep going

Ranting about how it’s all a shame tactic is the perfect way to convince people you’re personally affected. Couple that with the sarcasm about hating personal liberty and freedom of all kinds. You’re doing a terrific job making the opposite case.

Thank you for the clarification that you’re not mad.

[Mayhem]

Well, I treat you accordingly, or have you not noticed.

My proposals were utterly ignored for days. If your entire goal is to sea lion the shit out of something, I will also treat it accordingly.

Considering I'm carrying on more than a half-dozen concurrent conversations, I think I'm keeping track just fine.

Ah, so you're trying to teach me a lesson by ignoring the questions that would explain your arguments. Brilliant move.

I never once sea lioned, I explained why I was asking these questions. That you are unable to bring your point across is not my fault. I mean, you have to carry more than half a dozen concurrent conversations because of exactly that reason. Your inability to explain shit.

- - - Updated - - -

Ranting about how it’s all a shame tactic is the perfect way to convince people you’re personally affected. Couple that with the sarcasm about hating personal liberty and freedom of all kinds. You’re doing a terrific job making the opposite case.

Thank you for the clarification that you’re not mad.

There is no case to be made. Machismo tried to be as wrong as possible about everything from the start. He was impressively successful at that.

[Machismo]

Ah, so you're trying to teach me a lesson by ignoring the questions that would explain your arguments. Brilliant move.

I never once sea lioned, I explained why I was asking these questions. That you are unable to bring your point across is not my fault. I mean, you have to carry more than half a dozen concurrent conversations because of exactly that reason. Your inability to explain shit.

- - - Updated - - -



There is no case to be made. Machismo tried to be as wrong as possible about everything from the start. He was impressively successful at that.

There's a difference between not explaining something, and being misrepresented in that explanation.

[Mayhem]

There's a difference between not explaining something, and being misrepresented in that explanation.

I know.

/10char

[Machismo]

I know.

/10char

Great, then what was so complicated about those positions and their explanations? It took forever for you to understand something as simple as not increasing spending for 5 years.

[Felya]

Ranting about how it’s all a shame tactic is the perfect way to convince people you’re personally affected.

Yes, because when I explained how BLM and PP are competing with lobbying from corporations, the poster did not give a fuck. Neither do you... Keep trying to shame me though... it will work any minute... lulz...

[Mayhem]

Great, then what was so complicated about those positions and their explanations? It took forever for you to understand something as simple as not increasing spending for 5 years.

Nothing, that was why I asked, you made simple demands and never explained what they would lead to, who profits, who loses, hence me asking about their impact which you either ignored, never explained, or just repeated the demands.

[Felya]

Great, then what was so complicated about those positions and their explanations? It took forever for you to understand something as simple as not increasing spending for 5 years.

What was your answer when I asked you about liability of an individual in a corporation? You won’t answer because you don’t like where it leads...

What was your answer when I asked for an example of an individual lobbying? Sheldon Edelson lobbying through a PAC...

Nonsense... absolute nonsense...

[Machismo]

Nothing, that was why I asked, you made simple demands and never explained what they would lead to, who profits, who loses, hence me asking about their impact which you either ignored, never explained, or just repeated the demands.

Once again, the data was provided,and was fairly easy to figure out. Thats why I questioned why you were trying to demand I belabor explanations of the obvious.

[Mayhem]

Once again, the data was provided,and was fairly easy to figure out. Thats why I questioned why you were trying to demand I belabor explanations of the obvious.

Answering one question is not answering the other questions.

You try to keep it simple, but these things are not simple. We're talking about millions, hundreds of millions, maybe billions of dollars suddenly not going to corporations that built their basis or parts of it on them. They have to fulfill contracts themselves which leads to other corporations missing out because you came up with a simple proposal that starts a chain of events in the name of liberty and freedom just so wealthy people and corporations can keep their influence. Funny enough, influence you also criticize them for.

[Theodarzna]

None. Punk Rockers and Anarchist and Libertarians really don't have that different a politics. Ultimately they are defined by either a direct love of Markets or a commedified consumer choice and branding.

[Felya]

Answering one question is not answering the other questions.

Let me make it real simple...

Corporate PACs receive funding from corporate profits.
BLM and PP receive their funding from individual donations.

The only reason why BLM or PP need a PAC or lobbying, because otherwise they won’t have a voice. Treating lobbying as bribe, removes the disadvantage none profit organization face, against companies that measure their lobbying versus the saving it would result in.

On top of this, corporations already dissolve personal or individual liability, because they incorporated. That’s the whole point of being a corporation... to not take on the liability as an individual.

Lobbying in no way, shape or form... helps BLM or PP... just compare how much corporate super PACs spend to create wedge issues like BLM or controversy over PP. There would be no controversy for BLM or PP to need to even lobby, if it were not for the corporate arm pushing said controversy, because they can’t win on corporate tax cuts alone.

Look at Trump... His campaign was mostly attacking BLM and things like PP... who paid for that? Why does PP and BLM need a super PAC, for a manufactured battle, paid for by corporations?

- - - Updated - - -

None. Punk Rockers and Anarchist and Libertarians really don't have that different a politics. Ultimately they are defined by either a direct love of Markets or a commedified consumer choice and branding.

Keep telling your self... sorry, I mean... keep listening to Tim Pool... this predates 9/11...

[JohnBrown1917]

None. Punk Rockers and Anarchist and Libertarians really don't have that different a politics. Ultimately they are defined by either a direct love of Markets or a commedified consumer choice and branding.

Yeah, Punk and Anarchists who oppose any sort of strong hierarchic structure versus libertarians who think the free market solves everything and that the rich should own everything.


Yeah, totally the same.

[Machismo]

Answering one question is not answering the other questions.

You try to keep it simple, but these things are not simple. We're talking about millions, hundreds of millions, maybe billions of dollars suddenly not going to corporations that built their basis or parts of it on them. They have to fulfill contracts themselves which leads to other corporations missing out because you came up with a simple proposal that starts a chain of events in the name of liberty and freedom just so wealthy people and corporations can keep their influence. Funny enough, influence you also criticize them for.

I specifically chose simple things, because the entire point is compromise, and a willingness to not always get what you want. otherwise, you have no cause to complain when the other side does the same thing when they are in power.

Even worse, for someone like me, the revenge-style governance means that liberty is attacked each and every time.

I'm well aware that many rely on the government, which is exactly what I'm trying to stop.... to the tune of about 2-3% a year. That really isn't that much, when it comes down to it.

[Theodarzna]

Yeah, Punk and Anarchists who oppose any sort of strong hierarchic structure versus libertarians who think the free market solves everything and that the rich should own everything.


Yeah, totally the same.

Punk is a genre of music that largely died in the 90s, what they are for or against doesn't matter. Like any music scene, most are for getting laid and listening to music and buying merch. Punk is just "People who various hair styles, patches on a jacket and buttons and tattoos." its a consume lifestyle brand. Anarchists could be anything, AnCaps, AnComs, you know various flavors of whatever. AnCaps for example believe the are the ultimate Libertarians.