We will get in

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

Why conservatives are suddenly terrified of revolution
"Warren is quite correct: It is the rich who have made war against the 99 percent, not the other way around. They have dumped the tax burden onto the rest of us. They have shredded our social safety net and attacked our retirements. In their insatiable greed, they refuse even to consider raising the minimum wage for people who toil all day and can’t earn enough to feed their children. And they do everything in their power to block as many people from the polls as possible who might protest these conditions, while crushing the unions and any other countervailing forces that could fight to improve them.

The goal of this vicious war is to control all of the wealth and the government not just in the U.S., but the rest of the world, too, and to make sure the people are kept in a state of fear."

Comments

[tigron-x.livejournal.com]

And, this is exactly why I subscribe to voluntaryism. It is the statist that believes that initiating force against others in order to achieve ends is acceptable, however he/she fails to take into account those that will not limit that belief to only altruistic measures.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

Good job missing the point.

[tigron-x.livejournal.com]

Do you really need to share snide comments like that with me? Or, can you have the decency to actually say something of value, like what point did I miss?

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

You're ideas are ineffective in that they are insufficiently thought through. You act like the world could be transformed overnight and that humans would not react the same way they have throughout history.

You subscribe to something that does not work. Do you really want the police to be volunteers? Do you want vigilante justice? Unless you go that far down the absurdity hole, your ideas are no good.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

This is true, but ignores the reality that the starting point was less than optimal.

[tigron-x.livejournal.com]

Don't know what you mean by that.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

When you desire to change a system, best to fully understand how and why that system you wish to change came to be.

[tigron-x.livejournal.com]

Ok, so what is that you think I've ignored?

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

How do you suggest we get there from here?

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

Those influences which gave rise to statism.

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

Voluntaryism doesn't really change anything, does it?

[tigron-x.livejournal.com]

It changes our jurisprudence on a fundamental level. And that would affect the way we organize.

[mylaptopisevil.livejournal.com]

It is the statist that believes that initiating force against others in order to achieve ends is acceptable

Didn't you just give a full throated defense on why you have the right to tell women how you feel about them sexually even if they don't want to hear it, and anyone who feels otherwise is sexually repressed?

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

He'll be here all week folks...

[tigron-x.livejournal.com]

Nope, sure didn't. But I did talk about approaching women without shame for having a healthy labido and making sure that the woman isn't confused about one's intent. I also pointed out how taking into account the woman's desires and responding accordingly is important.

So, you taking everything I said to mean cat calling is of your own doing as you specifically omitted my disclaimers to reach that conclusion.

A quick impromptu micro-date, whether initiated by a man or woman, isn't an act of aggression as there is no malicious aforethought. It is highly disingenuous for you to color it as such.

It is your dishonesty that leads me to believe you're sexually repressed, not your concerns for ensuring that women are treated respectfully.

[mylaptopisevil.livejournal.com]

A quick impromptu micro-date, whether initiated by a man or woman, isn't an act of aggression as there is no malicious aforethought.

Who said anything about you being malicious? At worst, you're probably just a dope.

Plus, a lot of women really aren't interested in your idea of guys engaging them in spontaneous/unsolicited "impromptu micro-dates." They especially don't like it because you're not the only person who feels that there's nothing wrong with said micro-dates, and they're generally not interested in multiple guys trying to engage them every day when they have no interest in any of them.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

Ever hear the expression, "He's a walking hard on"

[tigron-x.livejournal.com]

You just can't help but be disingenuous, can you?

My real world experiences negate everything you're saying. That doesn't mean there isn't *some* truth behind what you're saying. But, you're being presumptuous about what women do and do not want. I'm only expressing my desires and allowing women to respond accordingly. And I respect their desires. It's a very simple, comfortable, and open exchange. There is nothing for me to be ashamed of.

Now why is there such conflict between what I'm experiencing and what you're saying? I'd say there is more to this than you're willing to admit.

So, either keep telling yourself what you want to hear, or go put yourself out there with the right attitude, but I doubt you could be honest with it anyways. Personally, I don't care what you do. Hell, you might even get cheered on by the choir around here.

And, let me be very clear, your self-righteous attitude isn't going to change my real world experiences no matter how much you try to "shame" me or how many passive-aggressive snide comments you throw at me. This sort of bitterness can't be healthy for you.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

Until a woman makes clear that a specific advance is unwanted, should a man assume any advance towards any woman is unwanted, as a default?

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

You claimed your advances are ALWAYS welcome and ANYONE who tries to tell you otherwise is a prude with a small dick or something.

I get that you're a proud sexual predator, but you need to acknowledge that others don't ALWAYS want to be the game. Often not...

[tigron-x.livejournal.com]

You spend a lot of time putting words in my mouth in order to paint me as a sexual predator. It's a really hacky thing to do, and it just goes to show how much of a bitter person you are. Your hate campaign is just going to turn people off from anything you have to say.

[aviv-b.livejournal.com]

OMG - aren't you just the classic example of male entitlement. You have a BIG libido, so women will just have to deal with your micro-intrusions on their personal space. And as such a manly man, you can read women's minds and know what they want. And if they don't want what you want, then they must be sexually repressed. Someone's been watching too much Mad Men.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

Is it a micro-intrusion to strike up a conversation with a stranger whom you fancy?

I would agree it is an intrusion if it's made clear that it is unwanted, but how do I know if the woman in the park who has made eye contact with me a few times, smiled, and is sitting there reading a book will feel like I am *intruding* if I walk up, say hello, and attempt to initiate a conversation that I would want to end with a date?

I think there's a problem with assuming that all attempts to "hit-on" (to use a colloquial phrase with some odd literal implications) someone is an intrusion, even a micro-intrusion, of someones space.

I mean, until you are given an indication that it is unwanted, are you (or more accurately, am I, a male) supposed to expect any advances to be unwanted?

[angelcerv25.livejournal.com]

Hhahahaahhahaha that's what I thought!

Horrible show, too.

[tigron-x.livejournal.com]

Yup, I can read women's minds just like you can read my posts. That's why I have to break the ice to figure out what a particular woman wants, right?