Sarah Palin

I HATE HER.
Why?
3 Main reasons (I have near 1hundred)
--3.
The Bridge built by her in Alaska. | The bridge, a span from the city to Gravina Island, home to only a few dozen people, secured a $223 million earmark in 2005. The pricey designation raised a furor and critics, including McCain, used the bridge as an example of wasteful federal spending on politicians' pet projects. Than after the project was thrown, she denounced it.

--2.
She is Pro-Creatonism in Schools. | We should be-able to learn about religion on our own time not be forced to listen to Christianity mumbo-shit.

--1.
Intertwining Race. | "So Sambo beat the bitch!" - Sarah Palin in refernce to Obama vs Hilary.
Not to forget. "What's the difference between a hockey mom and a pitbull? MAKE-UP HAHAHAHAHAHAH"

Fuck you Sarah Palin.

(Rant over, thanks for watching)

well mccain needs someone to keep him busy at night....presidency gets pretty boring and lonely

Killuminati wrote:

well mccain needs someone to keep him busy at night....presidency gets pretty boring and lonely

And the odd thing is
1/ if he dies of old age she becomes president Anarchists won't stand a chance
2/ he disagrees with her on about 38% of the issues..

Rename wrote:

Killuminati wrote:

well mccain needs someone to keep him busy at night....presidency gets pretty boring and lonely

And the odd thing is
1/ if he dies of old age she becomes president Anarchists won't stand a chance
2/ he disagrees with her on about 38% of the issues..

but you forget elites don't die till there in their 90s....*COUGH* DAVID ROCKEFELLER *COUGH*

Killuminati wrote:

but you forget elites don't die till there in their 90s....*COUGH* DAVID ROCKEFELLER *COUGH*

My great grandpa was called elite...he died at 40.

Quote :

And the odd thing is
1/ if he dies of old age she becomes president Anarchists won't stand a chance

Nonsense - the more oppressive and right wing the regime the more class antagonism strengthens socialism. The only way for capitalism to survive is by gradually moving left and implementing champaign socialism - liberalism - social democracy. Obama is there for a reason you know, think of him as a socialist visionary manufactured by the capitalist elite in order to reduce class antagonism.

NO DON'T CALL OBAMA SOCIALIST!!! AHHHH!!! seriously, he's a liberal. end. of. story. T_T that book "obama nation" is going to come back to bite me on the ass this year with people going "is obama really a socialist? =O " -_-"

i dislike palin too lol. such pathetic attempts to win over hillary voters XD

video about it anyone? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=135SdtFzV2U&feature=rec-fresh

By "Anarchists wont stand a chance" I ment that she wants to crack-down on leftists and possibly induse punishments..people won't want to change if they know they will be punished for it, not to mention they won't know about it, with the x5 more controlled media under reps.

And i loved that video, SolPac.

lol yeah, my friend sent it to me. cheered me up a bit.

and she seriously said she was going to crack down on leftists...? O.o;; who the fuck does she think she is? mccarthy?

Having read the horrible Sambo story, it REALLY fucking pissed me off that she said "So Sambo beat the bitch". Her policies are what are the worst, though.

UPSIDES of having Palin as president.
1) Like an alcoholic, the US needs to hit ROCK BOTTOM before it wakes up -- she will bring the country to revolutionary state.
2) I seriously have peaceful intentions woven into all of my philosophies, though I would not feel morally wrong KILLING someone then.
3) No more polar bears to worry about drowning because of global warming (she kills them and stuffs them).
4) Golly, I can go on. rofl

solpacvoicis wrote:

lol yeah, my friend sent it to me. cheered me up a bit.

and she seriously said she was going to crack down on leftists...? O.o;; who the fuck does she think she is? mccarthy?

Yes in one of her speeches she clearly stated "I have no sympathy for the leftist war-mongering anti-American rebel."

Now that's just unbelievable..i thought they liked freedom of speech? Damn republicans..even im that that much against the far left (I don't even really consider anarchists left like communists/socialists)

[quote="Inkus2000"]

Quote :

Yes in one of her speeches she clearly stated "I have no sympathy for the leftist war-mongering anti-American rebel."

Now that's just unbelievable..i thought they liked freedom of speech? Damn republicans..even im that that much against the far left (I don't even really consider anarchists left like communists/socialists)

Those in the elite with the slightest bit of class awareness understand the need to keep people like her out of power as an act of self preservation. The ''liberal elite'' know that allowing Neo Cons full sway will only strengthen the left. Just to be clear - both major parties in the US are veichles of opposing buguarsie interests. Liberals are not the left ! they are the far right.

You dont consider us left like state socialists ? Well were actually much further left then they are, Lenin himself reffered to us as the '' ultra left''. - a term still used by state socialists today.

[quote="Inkus2000"][quote="Inkus2000"]

Quote :

Yes in one of her speeches she clearly stated "I have no sympathy for the leftist war-mongering anti-American rebel."



You dont consider us left like state socialists ? Well were actually much further left then they are, Lenin himself reffered to us as the '' ultra left''. - a term still used by state socialists today.

We could be considered "far-left" but I believe were more right than state socialist...

[quote="Killuminati"][quote="Inkus2000"]

Inkus2000 wrote:

Quote :

Yes in one of her speeches she clearly stated "I have no sympathy for the leftist war-mongering anti-American rebel."



You dont consider us left like state socialists ? Well were actually much further left then they are, Lenin himself reffered to us as the '' ultra left''. - a term still used by state socialists today.

We could be considered "far-left" but I believe were more right than state socialist...

I face neither left, nor right -- I face forward.

Inkus2000 wrote:

You dont consider us left like state socialists ? Well were actually much further left then they are, Lenin himself reffered to us as the '' ultra left''. - a term still used by state socialists today.

No, i personally don't. I see anarchists as more in the middle section between communism and capitalism. You don't plan on forcing everyone to be ruled by a fascist dictator..nor be ruled by a corrupt communist, etc. So your just kind of..well there, if you know what i mean.

I never thought of anarchism really being anything because it isn't anything, their is no government, so it can't really be authorian right or authorian left or capitalist.

Rename wrote:

Inkus2000 wrote:

You dont consider us left like state socialists ? Well were actually much further left then they are, Lenin himself reffered to us as the '' ultra left''. - a term still used by state socialists today.

No, i personally don't. I see anarchists as more in the middle section between communism and capitalism. You don't plan on forcing everyone to be ruled by a fascist dictator..nor be ruled by a corrupt communist, etc. So your just kind of..well there, if you know what i mean.

I never thought of anarchism really being anything because it isn't anything, their is no government, so it can't really be authorian right or authorian left or capitalist.

We're don't believe in authoritarian lefts or rights. You can be "liberal" or "left" if you don't believe in an absence of authority.

I consider Anarchists pretty damn left for today's society.

We are the ultra left - state socialism is a ''conservative'' interpretation of Marxist doctrine. Anarchists and arguably Libertarian Marxists are the only real communists.

Communism is a libertarian de-centralized society devoid of government. If we are using communism to determine what is ''the left'' then we are as left as they get.

Rename wrote:

Inkus2000 wrote:

You dont consider us left like state socialists ? Well were actually much further left then they are, Lenin himself reffered to us as the '' ultra left''. - a term still used by state socialists today.

No, i personally don't. I see anarchists as more in the middle section between communism and capitalism. You don't plan on forcing everyone to be ruled by a fascist dictator..nor be ruled by a corrupt communist, etc. So your just kind of..well there, if you know what i mean.

I never thought of anarchism really being anything because it isn't anything, their is no government, so it can't really be authorian right or authorian left or capitalist.

well you could consider it a GOVERNMENT for the people and by the people literally and not literally

Yes but communism takes Socialism to get at that point, a dictatorship, anarchism is like the opposite which is why i can't group them both as left, i think the cappies just put them in that group together because they both really, really hate capitalism.

Rename wrote:

Yes but communism takes Socialism to get at that point, a dictatorship, anarchism is like the opposite which is why i can't group them both as left, i think the cappies just put them in that group together because they both really, really hate capitalism.

politics is too complicated to divide directly into left and right...

however, i should point out, socialism isn't supposed to be a dictatorship...

its just a democracy. a TRUE democracy, with planned economics...

its just...never worked out like that, what with being usurped with venguardism -_-"

which is why i think socialism is unnecessary, since a popular revolution is the only possible revolution to create socialism - its also the only way to create an anarchist revolution....-_-

Rename wrote:

Yes but communism takes Socialism to get at that point, a dictatorship, anarchism is like the opposite which is why i can't group them both as left, i think the cappies just put them in that group together because they both really, really hate capitalism.

No your misunderstanding comes from the assumption that Marxist definitions constitute the base for all terms.

The terms Socialism and Communism are ''not'' exclusive to Marxism they ''predate'' it. Therefore the term communism itself does ''not imply'' 'state socialism - unless used in the Marxist context. Moreover Libertarian schools of Marxist thought generally reject the need for any dictatorship and are very similar to Anarchism - Luxembourgism being a prime example.

Rename wrote:

Yes but communism takes Socialism to get at that point, a dictatorship, anarchism is like the opposite which is why i can't group them both as left, i think the cappies just put them in that group together because they both really, really hate capitalism.

A communist society is an equal, classless society.
State socialism is an (impossible) attempt to get there.

All communists MUST be anarchists, though not all anarchists are communists (like individualists).
I am a communist, I am an anarchist.

You can't have an equal, classless society with unequal leaders and a state that's in a class of its own.

KenCat wrote:

You can have an equal, classless society with unequal leaders and a state that's in a class of its own.

you mean "can't" right? o.o;; just checking...

solpacvoicis wrote:

KenCat wrote:

You can have an equal, classless society with unequal leaders and a state that's in a class of its own.

you mean "can't" right? o.o;; just checking...

Yes, sorry.

oh, okay, good, in the context it sounded like you were trying to make some point that i totally did not see lol ^_^