TopRamenBinLaden

If you work for just about any corporation in the US, you are supporting an equally repugnant agenda.

Welcome to Capitalism.

The Astralis esports team basically turns into Delta Force in this scenario.

To play devil's advocate, none of those vanguard parties were ever allowed to exist peacefully. They were always attacked, from the inside and out, by capitalist and fascistic powers. It's kind of hard to get rid of the state when it is needed to defend from other nations and groups looking to destroy it.

I'm not saying that a Vanguard party would necessarily ever voluntarily give up it's powers and disintegrate into pure communism without a large part of the world struggling against it, but it would be more likely to.

That is just pure speculation, though, because we live in a world that has shown that it will struggle against communism until the end. The Vanguard Party idea is flawed, because it fails to account for this indefinitely long struggle, and fails time and time again to offer a valid exit strategy into the next stage of Socialism/Communism.

To be honest, I was just trying to roast. Not trying to sway your point of view or anything. I don't hate you for your vehicle choice or anything, either. I just don't quite understand choosing that kind of vehicle, myself, and I think they shouldn't exist for the consumer market, except maybe for the occasional business that would actually benefit from owning one over other types of vehicles.

I respect your bravery and openness to post this, FWIW.

I can't imagine how much work you must get done with your absolutely pristine heavy duty work vehicle.

Yes, alcohol is technically a depressant, but I guarantee that the majority of people who sign that form don't know that.

It also says, "or any other controlled substance", implying that the list is made up of controlled substances, which alcohol is not.

I think a good lawyer could argue that alcohol doesn't count here, but no lawyer could ever argue that marijuana doesn't count, as it is specifically listed.

Unless you are a billionaire, or close to one, you aren't doing what I was referring to.

Billionaires commonly use their stock as collateral to get low interest loans. Then they use these loans to buy investments with better returns than the low interests loans that they took out. They leverage this additional capital from the investment to take out an another lower interest loan to pay off the original loan.

They get to rinse and repeat this, unless the economy takes a huge nosedive. In that case, the amount of loans they have exceed the gains they are making and they actually have to liquidate assets and actually have to pay a lot of tax. The thing is, this doesn't really happen often.

Unless they get real unlucky, most of them eventually die and pass down these investments to an heir before the economy ever nosedives. The heir can cash out without paying capital gains tax, because they get a fresh starting point at whatever the accumulated wealth was.

Basically, the capitalist class gets to avoid ever paying capital gains tax, and that sucks. This is just one of the ways they avoid paying anything back to the working class, there are plenty of others. They also use lots of legal loopholes to avoid estate tax, but that is another topic.

But also, billionaires don’t have billions of dollars sitting in the bank.

No, but some have billions of dollars in the stock market which they can use as a 'bank' anytime they want to buy something. Conveniently for them, all of that stock is unable to be taxed until it's cashed out. Though, why would they ever cash out when they have the free money glitch using it as collateral? If they had it in the bank, then at least the interest could be taxed, I guess.

I think there is a lot of historical evidence that dismisses your claims. Polyamory, and/or communal parenting, has existed in many forms amongst many different indigenous peoples, and it is still practiced today. There was a time in our past where children being raised by many different parents was the 'norm', and an argument could be made that it is a more natural form of child rearing than our 'norm' of monogamous parent couples.

There is no evidence of people that practice communal or group parenting having issues with violence or jealousy, that is just your assumption. There is evidence that these kind of situations could be advantageous. The child has more people to pay attention to them and can feel a better sense of community. They are also being socialized better and are being shown a wider variety of perspectives, etc.

I would definitely suggest you look into it for yourself, if you are curious why your assumption is wrong.

Marklar yea, marklar.

Good time to remind everyone that the Nazis were inspired by Jim Crow laws and the poor treatment of African Americans that was prevalent for the time, especially in the southern US.