Comments by "AholeAtheist" (@AholeAtheist) on "David Pakman Show"
channel.
-
39
-
23
-
20
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
14
-
13
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
9
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
This video is ridiculous.. First of all, social democrats might as well be democratic socialists lite, and as far as right wingers are concerned, especially the far-right, that's socialist according to them, even center-right is socialist to them, because you still have a social safety net, albeit a punitive one, they still don't like that and want that gone.
Then you've got this stuff about Venezuela, which has an economy that is still majority in private hands, so it's barely a social democracy, being authoritarian, is actually not, and is actually a democratic regime. David seems misinformed on that, and given what it actually is, he should be criticizing that regime from the economic left, not the economic right, as he seems to be.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@-Foxer- iSn'T a FaScIsT sTaTe. NoT yEt.
Except they display fasces in congress and have supported most fascist coups around the world over the last 70 years. Anyone that says that the U.S. isn't a fascist state has a very, very narrow definition of what fascism is. With the way the Democrat and Republican parties govern, they tick off many of the boxes. They both seem to love the merger of state and corporate power in order to maintain the existing social and economic hierarchy. They're both socially authoritarian, the Dems slightly less so, but they're also both culturally exceptionalist, not many establishment Dems advocate to get rid of the pledge of allegiance, just as one example. They also both have authoritarian streaks in their parties, Republican voters love to be on the bully side and tell people what they can and can't do, while the establishment Dems think that there's channels you have travel to get somewhere and you have to get in line for the throne and Hillary is the yaas kween, with their super delegates, delegates and electoral college. It seems most people don't see the fascist/1984 elements of U.S. society because the Brave New World is poking through to blind them. Not that those elements are bad things, they often help you see some of the fascist/1984 shit, but education is also needed, legal drugs don't work on their own, and in that department the U.S. is fucked.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Colin Pittman "Different standards for different races assumes racial inferiority." Umm, firstly, affirmative action is not having "different standards", it simply states if two candidates who both meet the same standard apply, the job goes to the African-American individual. They still meet the same standard. Secondly, it doesn't assume inferiority, it simply acknowledges the resource disparity between the European segment of the community, and the ghettoized African segment of the community, and attempts to equal an unequal playing field. See, being that there's less African-American people for a start, and then add in the fact that they are coming off the back chattel slavery, in which NO African-Americans were members of the bourgeoisie, in fact they were entrenched proletarians, which means there is a very small segment of the overall population that are African-American and also bourgeoisie, and being as we know that racial bias comes into hiring for jobs, that African Americans have less of a chance of being hired by the mostly white bourgeoisie, with a rather large European proletariat standing by. Your rhetoric is devoid of any social and economic historical context. It's a shame, coming from someone with a fairly reasonable position on the political compass.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Charley Panda You consider THAT a "rant"?! You are the height of anti-intellectualism. You were always inferior to me. Your impertinent replies demonstrate a wicked and malicious attack upon your betters. You're an unhappy man. One other commentor has given you so much. Who else would reply to you, Charley? When was the last time one of your comments resonated with other viewers? Here's the reality, Charley, you live in the shadow of the Kulinski fans. You live in the shadow of an Ahole, Charley. Consider the following, Charley.. I'm more attractive than you. I'm more intelligent than you. I have a greater grasp of reality than you. And fuck, Charley, I'm even a better pan smoker than you. This list could go on infinitely, but we don't have until the heat death of the universe, so let's proceed forward.. Charley, look, it's time to bow to your betters. DP, as you state, are such good internet patrons, while your attempts at internet stardom have come to nothing but failure and disappointment, this is how Po must feel every time your gay, fat, Panda ass lumbers through the bedroom doorway. While DP's success soars, yours is bogged down in the cesspit you've inhabited for years. Where you are winter, I am the first day of spring, and DP is the height of summer. Charley, the truth is, you must look up to even see us, because we are placed so high above you. Go ahead sing another poor Brett Keane impersonation. To be honest, you are but fodder for my amusement, if I was to never speak to you again, I would not fucking care. Charley, my only hope is that you and David can stop living in my shadow, in Kulinski's shadow, and in the DP's shadow. You are a landlocked manatee, doomed to wander the backwaters of the internet. Thank you, Charley, and I hope you have an amazing day.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Xrilliam7.62 No, I don't find it confusing, I think his content on the subject is confusing viewers who don't know better.
He brings up Venezuela to say that they're socialist, they're not. The majority of the Venezuelan economy is still in private hands.
Then he talks about it being an authoritarian imposition of government, when Maduro is democratically elected. They have press freedom, and the judicial freedom he's concerned about is something Maduro was democratically elected to rectify, he ran on that as a campaign issue. Where the fuck are you people getting your information?..
Then he brushes aside U.S. meddling in Venezuela, like it isn't a possible, or more accurately probable, reality.
As far as the ideological description portion, don't get me wrong, I think it's great that he identifies parts of Marxism-Leninism as having value and that that shouldn't be neglected because some prescriptions from that school of thought leave much to be desired. But as far as the difference between social democracy and democratic socialism, I think he might be being too strict in his analysis, and there is obviously some grey area between the two where either might be aptly applied. I think he could have explained this better, and as such I think this could be confusing to less knowledgeable viewers. (Not in the sense that they would be knowingly confused, but that they might unknowingly confuse the political landscape when thinking about and discussing it because of this.)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@cwkay6847 Yes, and yes? My whole comment was pointing out that we're not a social democracy. But before the Labour party went all neoliberal on us in the 1980s, they were a social democratic party, so when the Michael Joseph Savage government was around, we were more similar to social democracies like Denmark, Norway, Sweden, which are social democracies, BTW, which BTW, still has markets as it's a form of regulated capitalism.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Xeno Idaltu Funny you say that, because because of the nature of Hip-Hop, they are able to and often do, sample music from classical, to jazz, to rock, to electronic, so you don't need to miss out on any of that. And, as has been pointed out above, you can find rappers who have lyrics that delve into many different areas of thought/expression, such as Greydon Square or Aesop Rock or GZA, the last two of which, have a very high vocabulary in their lyrics, higher than Shakespeare.
Although, I'm not trying to argue here.. People like what they like..
1
-
1
-
1
-
1