[quote=@Dinh AaronMk]One man's terror group is another person's freedom fighters. [/quote]

And vice versa, and anon, and so forth or whatever. To me that sounds like a good reason to be leery of political models with revolution at their core. Humans don't have a great track record with revolutions or freedom fighters for that matter. America too. Shit I bet we spent more than 100x the equivalent funds of the Sons of Liberty to help those brave and noble Al Qaedas fight off the Soviets).

If I'm gonna back a revolution, odds are, it's not gonna be the one proposed by hundreds of troglodytes who spend most of their days debating whether or not selling a unicorn frappuchino should count as a hate crime. And I bet the plastic thing it came in is made from recycled Kony 2012 friendship bracelets.

[quote]It's so of hard to go about things when specific cases aren't used. Though I also don't want to sound like I'm someone to try and defend the Holocaust, because I don't. But in most situations as I have learned about them it's less active malevolence on the part of the state (unless we're discussing someone like the Tatars, then there was a targeted effort there).[/quote]

Is that, like.... better, though? "Someone else probably would've also killed a shitload of people out of incompetence" isn't exactly a roaring endorsement. 

[quote]I live near one of those major industrial American, rust belt cities.

I haven't seen shit.[/quote]

Damn it, I've Trumped the thread. Unregard that tangent, I realize now I'm doing a red-herring thing.

[quote]As I'm sure I already pointed out before, this too is the goal of communism. [/quote]

I'm just.... sorry, I'm hitting on this like every other sentence this time around but..... the goal of communism in the past has been to, like.... feed people, and have them be not dead. 

[quote]The difference being when its achieved I'm not paying Applebucks to get an Applecoffee, or that I need a basic income anyways to get what's needed because the system has already been altered where every means of production is now the public property and if there's any one thing I want I can get it. What's different is how the approach is made.

Marxists (or in this case, Marxist-Leninists) would argue there needs to be a strong state to oversee the change from A to B while Anarcho-Communists argue there needs to be immediate change from A to B since the transitional period is irrelevant. Where-as Market Communists would suggest that in order to effectively shift to communism we need to - for a while - play nice in the global market place because there is at the moment still capitalist countries that can derail the revolution in much the same way Napoleon derailed the Revolution and when he got deposed Europe just replaced the entire French power structure with a king (to then depose).[/quote]

I need to learn more about the different sects? Sects, right? Whatever. I think we're overstating the role of the government. Innovation isn't.... well, isn't USUALLY a product of the state. I don't know enough about like Roman aqueducts and that sort of thing. Wild horses don't need to be led to water, or, like, some other folksy metaphor for "fuck it we're prolly fine."

[quote]Because it shouldn't be Steve Job's property if he isn't laboring to actually grow the apple, and if in the future is laboring to grow the apple then it stands that no one should own the apple.

Fucking eat the apple and stop worrying about spooks, you'll feel better.[/quote]

Dammit I told you once, it's called a Krautteste. Don't make me tell you a third time. I am the krautteste baron. Don't question it.

[quote]By market rules the most accesible product on the market is the most succesful. There's a reason Apple's iPhone actually doesn't lead the smart phone revolution despite being in some ways the superior product because it's such a carefully crafted self contained environment. But it's the Android and phones like it because they used open source Linex as its operating platform and didn't spend so much money for people to stare at paper on polished wooden tables in highly polished fiber-glass office-labs while sipping twenty-dollar mocha-capacinos. Android just did it and it's a tool that works well enough, can be used as a future platform for other shit, and is cheaper than the iShit.[/quote]

Soooooooooooooo peg leg?

We can drop this thread if you like. I don't think we're arguing prosthetic development on equal, uh.... footing god damn it kill me.

[quote]Can I get a helicopter ride?[/quote]

I still don't fully understand this meme.

[quote]Last I checked folks like Jefferson wanted more people to be involved because if there weren't more people involved then the system isn't valid.

He may have told slaves and women to fuck off, but at the least he wasn't saying the bankers and speculators should be the only ones to be involved. [/quote]

Just the white landowners though lol. Okay, so maybe I should dial down the founders-worship a touch. BUT -- the people who got a say, back in the day, were the ones who had a financial stake in things. That worked great, right? Pay no attention to the slavery or civil war or repression or clubbings. Yeah. Okay. Yeah definitely dial back the founder-worship. 

[quote]They didn't send a strongly worded letter. They fucking committed what we would happily call terrorism today.[/quote]

Oh, posh. That's an act of petty vandalism, fit for the cover of Enquirer at the worst. The start of the American Revolution is more accurately (probably) attributed to the already-ongoing wars of the French and British within the context of global colonialism. If it weren't for all that, honestly our shenanigans never really rose to a level which should've warranted a war. Except maybe that Declaration... I guess that would probably merit a royal bitchslap. 

I'm rambling. The Tea Party would never pass for terrorism. Unless you consider pouches of Earl Gray as citizens...... wait are you British?