Walsingham

*Edit snipped* Well, I am obliged to thank you for attempting to address my queries. However you are still struggling to grasp two essential points: 1. All the government action you describe still has to be executed. Such execution must be underwritten by force. This is true of all government action, of course, but not all government action results in blood being spilled. However, a lack of violence is only normal where people don't stand to lose very much. Therefore in this case where you are talking about taking a lot from lots of people you are signing up for blood 1.1 Talking about grassroots nonviolent action is obvious balls. Nonviolent action won't work, and grassroots violent action is a lynchmob. Look at Zimbabwe. 2. Regarding policing the state, once again you are in some fantasy land where local commities are pure and virtuous by simple reason of being small and local. Small local commities are narrow-minded, furiously backbiting, and staffed by mediocrities. I can't help feeling that all your theories prove is that you have absolutely no experience of running any organisations, or managing people.

Who the hell would nerve gas a mouse?

As long as there is still capitalism, there will be anti-capitalism. Socialism, even revolutionary socialism, is hardly defunct. You mean in the same way that as long as there are clean arses there will skanky ones?

That's all I'm interested in. This is why women in the Islamic world wear hajib, by the way. I think it says more about the men. They simply lack the the fortitude and control of their own sexual desires that they have to cover up their women for their own safety. Pathetic. Indeed. Women are terrifying and unpredictable creatures. But covering them in a tarpaulin is not the answer.

A cretinous midget?

I found out I might be going to see a potential client in Minneapolis at the end of next week. So it's pepper spray and woolly hat time.

OK. I was trying to maintain a neutrality of question, but I'll be more pointed: 1. Do you beileve people will give up their private property if you ask politely? 2. If as I suspect people will not willingly give up all their private property, how will you transfer it to collective ownership? 3. Even once property is pooled, some people will have managerial control over how that property is applied. Who gets roads/water/broadband first? How will you ensure this process is fair? 4. Even pooled property has a tendency to get caught in individual hands. How will you ensure redistribution of such material? 5. 'Each according to his needs'. Who decides those needs, and how will you distinguish between needs and wants? 6. What agency of administration will you set up, and how will be constituted? I won't insult anyone by pretending I don't know the answers to these questions, but I'd dearly love to hear your thinly veiled lust for politically motivated violence given free rein, in your own inimitable phrasing.

Unlikely. I recognize that the people of Somalia are not yet through the stage of capitalism so that they can attain proper socialism, though I would highly recommend they create institutions - such as these cooperatives - that help lay the groundwork for a socialist paradise for their children and grandchildren. You're like some crazy old blind man on a street corner. You do realise that. I mean if you have to choose some defunct philosophy why not zoroastrianism?

I disagree. That's all I'm interested in. Sluggo, if my guru status means anything to you please don't ignore me now. NEVER judge a woman from behind. Aerobics and organic shampoos mean it has nver been more dangerous to judge a woman by her rear profile.

You mean like the KKK?

Here's a question you've ignored before: how do you suggest the communist society will achieve and maintain a parity in individual power?

Thanks for breaking my h-scroll for an image that's old as hell. Buoyant as ever.

It would seem your contribution is overdue, taks.

My response to your friend is that unlike Continental women, ours are quite prepared to hide if a man is sufficiently hideous or obnoxious.

I agree that even without Man-made warming we are on a planet which shifts massively every now and then. Because of that I'd be happier if we really were having man-made warming. As I may have said before.

Don't rub it in, I miss Yorkshire enough as it is. The bit about the women is especially true. Two of my friend's have remarked that in London the women look amazing, but won't even talk to you. Here they are slightly less attractive, but infinitely more approachable. This is why whenever friends come to visit they insist on going out.

And George Galloway claims to represent all Britons... You're far too smart to genuinely think it's that simple.

Maybe it's the way myself and others constantly attack him which makes him harsh and defensive?

Thou wouldst disobey the first commandment? Never shaltest thou hanker after women whom thou hast seen only from the rear. Pfft! She

Thou wouldst disobey the first commandment? Never shaltest thou hanker after women whom thou hast seen only from the rear.

Do i strike you as a man who has eaten his own face with horror?

I can't stop looking at that picture. I think I actually just lost SAN.

*edit snipped* Actually, that reminds me: _IF_ the prognosis for humanity as propounded by climate change doomsayers was taken literally and completely to heart I think most people would immediately advocate massive military action to cripple the industrial capacity of 'certain' nations. I mean we're talking millions dead and or starving if it turns out to be true. This would normally be a casus belli. So perhaps its good that people aren't taking it so seriously.

This thread is not for sources. It is source free.

Good lord