Non-pertinent
We’re talking about you losing every argument you brought up on the board this weekend. And then you drag it out like the bratty cunt you are
Rinse and repeat
Entirely pertinent. You’ve compared yourself to him for days.
Compare yourself to him now. None.
No I haven’t…I compared him to the whole board…But mainly GSC because that’s how the convo started
Next
……which includes you, you moron.
Non-pertinent
It’s literally pertinent. The entire board clearly includes you, toilet wine.
Ya but the subject isn’t pertinent
Next
Anything you put on “Discourse” as a “subject” is entirely pertinent.
Ummm…no it is in’t. Or do I have to explain the meaning of yet another word to you?
Are you or are you not part of the board?
We known the answer, which sadly, is yes.
Toilet wine.
I don’t think conservatives are pushing to join the war, but I could be wrong. All conservatives and Fox News employees aren’t the same, after all.
Probably shouldn’t let you change the subject, but I can’t resist.
Anarchists, particularly Neo-anarchists, are quite fine with government and taxes.
Um, no they are not. The acceptance, if that is what you would like to call it, for existing form of government is an ends to a means. The passage below expands:
Chomsky could even comment following the Thatcher/Reagan assault on the public sphere in the 1980s that ‘protecting the state sector today is a step towards abolishing the state because it maintains a public arena in which people can participate, and organize, and affect policy, and so on, though in limited ways’.[[53]] Whether this attitude led to more compromise with the state than was necessary can certainly be debated—Herbert Read, for one, would never be forgiven by his anarchist comrades for accepting a knighthood in recognition of his services to literature, and both Chomsky and Bookchin have incurred much criticism from anarchists for endorsing a degree of participation in elections. But from the perspective of most post-war anarchists, it was foolish not to ‘make use’ of what the state had to offer and to attempt to influence its policies, at least until viable alternatives to state provisions were devised.[[54]] Given the long-term understanding of radical change that had been incorporated into post-war anarchist thought, this could mean supporting liberal or social democratic policies in the short term.
As for the taxes part of your statement, that is BS too:
They are essentially hyper-Marxists and not really anarchists by definition.
All Marxists can be anarchists and vice versa. This statement is utterly useless.
You supported mass riots in the street, the defunding of police, the very attack on democracy for 4 years. Own it.
I support police reform for habitual brutality against black people. While 93% of the protests were peaceful, a very small % ended up as unfortunate incidents. I understand why those acts occur and am sympathetic to the cause. However, if you break the law you should have consequences.
There isn’t “habitual” brutality against black people…That is a total media-driven farce. But I’m all for anything that can lead to decrease in police brutality against ANY people
But once again, why do idiots like djrion not ask the question why white police victims SELDOM make national news or cause an outrage?