Who were the bottom 10 Worst US Presidents?

[MarxSchmarx]

In response to this rather jingoistic thread:
http://www.revleft.com/vb/were-top-10-t112022/index.html

10 Franklin Pierce
9 Rutherford Hayes
8 Grover Cleveland
7 James Polk
6 Woodrow Wilson
5 Andrew Johnson
4 Ronald Reagan
3 James Buchanan
2 George W. Bush
1 Herbert Hoover

[Conquer or Die]

10. Bill Clinton
9. Ronald Reagan
8. Jimmy Carter
7. George W. Bush
6. Franklin D. Roosevelt
5. Calvin Coolidge
4. Andrew Johnson
3. Woodrow Wilson
2. Ulysses S. Grant
1. Andrew Jackson

[LOLseph Stalin]

1. George W Bush
2. Everybody else

Need I say more?

[CommunityBeliever]

I do not like any of them not even Obama so it is hard for me to make a list. If you look at the official polls of what the worst presidents are those are probably actually the best ones :lol:

10. William McKinely
9. George H. W. Bush
8. Bill Clinton
7. Ronald Reagan
6. Herbert Hoover
5. James K Polk
4. Ulysses S Grant
3. Woodrow Wilson
2. Andrew Jackson
1 George W. Bush

[Richard Nixon]

Jesus, these lists are unbelievable. I mean people like James K Polk or FDR? They were our best presidents. :cursing:

[mykittyhasaboner]

The worst one was Washington, he started the chain of assholes known as US presidents.

[RHIZOMES]

Jesus, these lists are unbelievable. I mean people like James K Polk or FDR? They were our best presidents. :cursing:

Yeah stealing land from Mexicans what a cool guy Polk was.

[Richard Nixon]

Yeah stealing land from Mexicans what a cool guy Polk was.

Look at the former Mexican territories today: Texas, California, Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, Texas, and Colorado. In Texas the people wished to join the US BTW. As for the rest while then it may have been wrong the end, ultimate result was positive-would those territories have been any more developed, wealthy, populous under Mexican rule or would it have been run by corrupt politicians and warlords like the rest of Mexico? Also Polk got the Pacific Northwest for the US peacefully.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Look at the former Mexican territories today: Texas, California, Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, Texas, and Colorado.
OK, and? Is there something special I'm supposed to be looking for?


In Texas the people wished to join the US BTW.OK, too bad for them.


As for the rest while then it may have been wrong the end, ultimate result was positive-would those territories have been any more developed, wealthy, populous under Mexican rule or would it have been run by corrupt politicians and warlords like the rest of Mexico? Also Polk got the Pacific Northwest for the US peacefully.Uh, the US is runned by corrupt politicians and warlords too, there called the capitalist class.

[Richard Nixon]

OK, and? Is there something special I'm supposed to be looking for?

OK, too bad for them.

Uh, the US is runned by corrupt politicians and warlords too, there called the capitalist class.

I doubt that, and if so at any rate the US is better run and richer then Mexico's government.

[Misanthrope]

I doubt that, and if so at any rate the US is better run and richer then Mexico's government.

A politician is corrupt and works for other powers no matter what country they are in. Secondly, a country's social efficiency shouldn't be judged by "richness".

[Bud Struggle]

I doubt that, and if so at any rate the US is better run and richer then Mexico's government.

And there's a point here. There's bad Capitalist societies that treat their citizens like dirt and there good Capitalist societies that treat their citizens really sell.

Then there's bad Socialist societies that treat their citizens like dirt.

And here the comparison ends.

Living n the USA is the best the rich, poor and in between people ever had it.

It works.

[mykittyhasaboner]

I doubt that, and if so at any rate the US is better run and richer then Mexico's government.

Great argument: "No your wrong, because the US is just better and richer."

I'm so convinced.


And there's a point here. There's bad Capitalist societies that treat their citizens like dirt and there good Capitalist societies that treat their citizens really well.
hahaha, I didn't know someones analysis of capitalism could be so detached from reality, and black-and-white than this. Thanks for proving me wrong tom. Oh yeah and I fixed your typo for you.


Then there's bad Socialist societies that treat their citizens like dirt.

And here the comparison ends.So there can be good capitalists and bad capitalists, but just bad socialists?

Get a fucking history book or something. Learn something.


Living n the USA is the best the rich, poor and in between people ever had it.
Really? Then why are living standards in over a handful of countries way better than the average American's?

Was living in the USA great for indentured Native American servants (those who weren't killed), African slaves, simple destitute and poor folks, etc? Do you realize that poverty exists in the United States?


It works.I think your just full of shit.

[Bud Struggle]

Really? Then why are living standards in over a handful of countries way better than the average American's? I have no problem with certain "botique" countries having a things a bit better--no "North Koreas" on the list, I'm sure. :D


Was living in the USA great for indentured Native American servants (those who weren't killed), African slaves, simple destitute and poor folks, etc? Do you realize that poverty exists in the United States? Yea, that was bad--but hopefully thing are better these days. And there's no chance of America falling to Communism like the Soviet Union, Poland, Cezhoslovokia, Romania, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, China, Vietnam, and Cambodia have fallen to Capitalism. Bada-BING!

Poverty exists all over--the differnece is that in the US we can get out of it if we try. Been there/done the poverty thing myself, then I worked for a better life.


I think your just full of shit. The best revenge is living well.

[CommunityBeliever]

There's bad Capitalist societies that treat their citizens like dirt and there good Capitalist societies that treat their citizens really sell.

It is capitalism that is responsible for treating the citizens like dirt in the first place and it is indeed true that some countries like Cuba treat their citizens better that is not because capitalism is working well it is because the people there are more anti-capitalist and they have decided that the state can most things better then capitalism.


Living n the USA is the best the rich, poor and in between people ever had it.

Strictly speaking there are some countries in Europe with only 500,000 people like Luxembourg that have much less poor people and more rich people per capita then the United States. Luxembourg has like 250 banks and it is full of bourgeosie people.

People living in Qatar have it better then America too because they do not have to pay taxes and the government offers all sorts of programs to its people for free because large amounts of oil was discovered on Qatar and that is used to pay for the citizens. There is only 1.5 million people on Qatar but there is huge amounts of rich people.

In Cuba poor people have it much better then they would in the United States because if you go to the United States and you are poor you will likely have to be a victim of wage slavery. I cannot deny though that the United States is one of the best places for rich people to live although if you are rich you might also want to consider going to Luxembourg and other bourgeoisie countries.

[RGacky3]

And there's a point here. There's bad Capitalist societies that treat their citizens like dirt and there good Capitalist societies that treat their citizens really sell.

Theres imperialistic nations that exploit other countries take the profits and let the exploited class in their own country have something extra, and then theres the nations that are just exploited.


Living n the USA is the best the rich, poor and in between people ever had it.

It works.

No its not, out of all the industrailized nations its probably the worst.


have no problem with certain "botique" countries having a things a bit better--no "North Koreas" on the list, I'm sure.

botique countries?

You mean sensible somewhat civilized ones?


Yea, that was bad--but hopefully thing are better these days. And there's no chance of America falling to Communism like the Soviet Union, Poland, Cezhoslovokia, Romania, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, China, Vietnam, and Cambodia have fallen to Capitalism. Bada-BING!


What are you talking about, why do you still insist on being ignorant? Communism =/= USSR and China


Poverty exists all over--the differnece is that in the US we can get out of it if we try. Been there/done the poverty thing myself, then I worked for a better life.


Not anymore so than any other nation.

[Bud Struggle]

What are you talking about, why do you still insist on being ignorant? Communism =/= USSR and China



I don't know. Lots of people on this board think so. :blink:

[CommunityBeliever]

I don't know. Lots of people on this board think so.

I do not know about everyone else but to mean personally the world communism actually means something :cool:

Regardless that has nothing to do with this topic so can we get back on topic please?

[MikeSC]

Living n the USA is the best the rich, poor and in between people ever had it.

It works.You can't isolate capitalist countries and judge them alone- those poor who supposedly have it better than the poor of the rest of the world do it wearing clothes sewn by kids in sweatshops abroad, eating food grown by kids and slaves abroad, processed by illegal immigrants in harsh conditions, and so on.

Would the USA or Sweden or wherever be as wealthy as they are if they existed within a vaccuum, with no neo-colonies to exploit? You can't say that the USA is "good" capitalism and the third world "bad" capitalism- they are different facets of the same capitalism.

[Richard Nixon]

You can't isolate capitalist countries and judge them alone- those poor who supposedly have it better than the poor of the rest of the world do it wearing clothes sewn by kids in sweatshops abroad, eating food grown by kids and slaves abroad, processed by illegal immigrants in harsh conditions, and so on.

Would the USA or Sweden or wherever be as wealthy as they are if they existed within a vaccuum, with no neo-colonies to exploit? You can't say that the USA is "good" capitalism and the third world "bad" capitalism- they are different facets of the same capitalism.

Many of these labourers in foreign countries are treated modicumly better by American companies then by native companies and that's how these countries ascend to prosperity. Look at South Korea or Taiwan-they started through this. And now China's economy is booming thanks to American companies and the Chinese leaders wising up.

[MikeSC]

Many of these labourers in foreign countries are treated modicumly better by American companies then by native companies and that's how these countries ascend to prosperity. Look at South Korea or Taiwan-they started through this. And now China's economy is booming thanks to American companies and the Chinese leaders wising up.

On the whole, it's not American companies that employ these people. American companies tend to buy from foreign companies, to outsource and so on.

Let me give you an example, it's a favourite example of mine because it's one where we have the statistics, there have been large studies and that's why I'm taking this industry as an example. I mention it a lot on these forums.

The ILO did a study in the Ivory Coast in 2005, a census of children between the ages of 9-12 working in the cocoa industry. They found more than 200,000 working between 70 and 100 hours a week, they found 12,000 that were either bond slaves or they suspected them to be bond slaves. All of this for very little money, not enough to live on, in conditions that drastically shorten life expectancy.

These, by and large, were not Western companies exploiting these people directly. But the three biggest buyers from these plantations were Nestle, Mars and Hersheys- and they set the prices. The targets they give, these foreign companies and small plantations have no choice but to use slaves. The companies know it, they've known it for a long time. The UN told them to start regulating themselves in 2001- checking back in 2005, it's gotten worse. They were told to regulate themselves again- we've had no new study on that scale, but the general consensus is that, through price-fixing and demands for increasing "efficiency", things have gotten even worse since then.

American companies may treat their workers ever so slightly better inside the USA, but this is subsidised by the use of kids and slaves abroad. You cannot say that American companies are "good" and that Cote d'Ivoiran companies "bad"- because it's all the same economy. In order to make the very slight concessions that American companies make to their workers, they have to increase the degree of exploitation abroad out of sight. Without the "bad capitalism" you wouldn't have what you call "good capitalism". They are both sides of the same coin, and they rely fundamentally on one another.

[RGacky3]

Awesome post MikeSC.

Also Richard Nixon, were you implying that somehow American companies are just naturally more nice?

[Richard Nixon]

Awesome post MikeSC.

Also Richard Nixon, were you implying that somehow American companies are just naturally more nice?

Not "nice" but that they help develop Third World countries economically.

[Qayin]

they help develop Third World countries economically
Yeah by privatizing everything so only the upper class can afford it :laugh:

[Sarah Palin]

Luxembourg has like 250 banks and it is full of bourgeosie people.

In French, people from Luxembourg are actually called Luxembourgeosie. Just thought you all would enjoy that little tid-bit.

[mykittyhasaboner]

I have no problem with certain "botique" countries having a things a bit better--no "North Koreas" on the list, I'm sure. :D
"Botique" countries? What in the world are you talking about?

Actually, Cuba must count as a "North Korea" to you, so your simply wrong. Cubans have longer life expectancy, better health care, better economic security, less poverty, less infant mortality, less unemployment, less inflation; not to mention an all around growing and diversifying economy under the democratic ownership and control of the workers, while the US's is doing the opposite. Even in social-democratic countries, as capitalist as they are, have outstandingly better standards of life in terms of health care, worker's rights, etc.


Yea, that was bad--but hopefully thing are better these days. And there's no chance of America falling to Communism like the Soviet Union, Poland, Cezhoslovokia, Romania, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, China, Vietnam, and Cambodia have fallen to Capitalism. Bada-BING!"Hopefully things are better these days?" There worse. The scale of violence and oppression committed by the United States today is much more advanced and effective than it ever was.

Leave it to you to reference something totally off topic when you have no argument.



Poverty exists all over--the differnece is that in the US we can get out of it if we try. Been there/done the poverty thing myself, then I worked for a better life.
Oh shut the fuck up, this is complete nonsense and you know it. I don't care how many employees you exploit due to your "self-made" efforts, or how many fucking millionaires there are who "worked" for their fortune. The bottom line is if everyone cannot succeed and work for their own development and betterment of living, then the system doesn't work. Unfortunately, that's how capitalism is, since a very small minority of people actually make money and gain considerable wealth. Piss of you elitist piece of trash.

The best revenge is living well.Go count some money that you take from other people's labor. Fucking parasite.

[Bud Struggle]

"Botique" countries? What in the world are you talking about? FYI there is a big difference in little well established countrues like Belgium or Sweden than mega countries like Russia or the USA.


Actually, Cuba must count as a "North Korea" to you, so your simply wrong. Cubans have longer life expectancy, better health care, better economic security, less poverty, less infant mortality, less unemployment, less inflation; not to mention an all around growing and diversifying economy under the democratic ownership and control of the workers, while the US's is doing the opposite. Even in social-democratic countries, as capitalist as they are, have outstandingly better standards of life in terms of health care, worker's rights, etc. Obviously another country you've never been to but read about longingly on Commie.com.

I've been there and it's a regular centeral American hell hole repleate with hookers and scam artists and all the rest. The world best cigars--bar none. I'll give them that.


"Hopefully things are better these days?" There worse. The scale of violence and oppression committed by the United States today is much more advanced and effective than it ever was. It's the same. What's the point?


Leave it to you to reference something totally off topic when you have no argument. the Iron Curtain countries? How are they EVER off topic?



Oh shut the fuck up, Smooth!


The bottom line is if everyone cannot succeed and work for their own development and betterment of living, then the system doesn't work. No not everyone--just everyone that WANTS TO. Most people would be EXACTLY the same under Communism or Capitalism.



Unfortunately, that's how capitalism is, since a very small minority of people actually make money and gain considerable wealth. It's hard work.



Piss of you elitist piece of trash. I was born from immigrant working poor.



Go count some money that you take from other people's labor. Fucking parasite. Oddly one could make a case they take from my work. I invent the company, I provided the ideas and the jobs. One could make a case they make too much. ;)

[Glenn Beck]

Not "nice" but that they help develop Third World countries economically.

:lol: :laugh: :lol: :laugh: :lol: :laugh: :lol: :laugh: :lol: :laugh: :lol: :laugh:


Look at the former Mexican territories today: Texas, California, Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, Texas, and Colorado. In Texas the people wished to join the US BTW. As for the rest while then it may have been wrong the end, ultimate result was positive-would those territories have been any more developed, wealthy, populous under Mexican rule or would it have been run by corrupt politicians and warlords like the rest of Mexico? Also Polk got the Pacific Northwest for the US peacefully.

Isn't it a shame Hitler failed to do the same to Poland and the Ukraine? He could have turned those basketcases populated by shiftless Slavs into Teutonic industrial powerhouses!

Jesus Christ, just listen to yourself.

[Richard Nixon]

Isn't it a shame Hitler failed to do the same to Poland and the Ukraine? He could have turned those basketcases populated by shiftless Slavs into Teutonic industrial powerhouses!

Jesus Christ, just listen to yourself.

If you don't believe me look at the corruption, drug wars, and poverty just across the border in Baja, Sonora, or Chihuahua compared to the wealth of California, Arizona, and Texas.

[mykittyhasaboner]

FYI there is a big difference in little well established countrues like Belgium or Sweden than mega countries like Russia or the USA.
No shit, but "botique" is the most pathetic label for a country I've ever heard. If you want to compare the living standards of the USA and Russia, since their "mega countries", then your making a totally unfair comparison.


Obviously another country you've never been to but read about longingly on Commie.com.

I've been there and it's a regular centeral American hell hole repleate with hookers and scam artists and all the rest. The world best cigars--bar none. I'll give them that.
Sorry Tom, we don't all have boats here in south florida, I can't sail to Cuba at a moment's whim, (let alone a country which is illegal for me to visit). :rolleyes:

Obviously another country which you cannot provide any factual information which suggests my claims were wrong, but on the other hand, I can. Here's a start:

http://www.alternet.org/healthwellness/53087/
http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mydocs/state_and_revolution/democracy_in_cuba.htm (http://www.columbia.edu/%7Elnp3/mydocs/state_and_revolution/democracy_in_cuba.htm)
http://www.queensu.ca/philosophy/cuba/philosophical_issues.html

Hardly Commie.com btw.




It's the same. What's the point?The point is the US isn't some dandy place where everyone who wants to get ahead of the game, can. It doesn't work like that, get it through your head. I can want to be millionaire, but even if I work towards it, I probably won't make it.


the Iron Curtain countries? How are they EVER off topic?Because this thread was originally about US presidents, then after pitiful claims made by, you, the topic has somewhat switched to American capitalism over all. But you know what I'll bite, because it's pretty easy to argue with this; just take a look at any news or info coming out of eastern Europe concerning economics or politics, it's all bad. The whole region has been plundered by private ownership, this is common knowledge; knowledge which obviously is not good enough for such a great hard working capitalist like you.





No not everyone--just everyone that WANTS TO. Most people would be EXACTLY the same under Communism or Capitalism.Lol, so everyone who wants to have a decent life, simply can? Tell that to billions of people living on less than 2 dollars a day.



I was born from immigrant working poor.But yet only a few, including yourself (according to you) make it. You go on to boast about being "self-made", and only people who "want to" can get ahead and all this crap while millions are busting there asses off for the bare essentials. That's what I mean by you being an elitist.



Oddly one could make a case they take from my work. I invent the company, I provided the ideas and the jobs. One could make a case they make too much. ;)But are you down in the assembly line in your factory working day and night for a wage from somebody else? No, so no you can't make that argument.

[GPDP]

If you don't believe me look at the corruption, drug wars, and poverty just across the border in Baja, Sonora, or Chihuahua compared to the wealth of California, Arizona, and Texas.

Where are you going with this argument? What is your point?

Also, I live in Texas, and we have plenty of that stuff as well, especially in the Rio Grande Valley where I live, which is the poorest area in the entire nation. Perhaps not as much as those Mexican states, but it's there.

[Bud Struggle]

No shit, but "botique" is the most pathetic label for a country I've ever heard. If you want to compare the living standards of the USA and Russia, since their "mega countries", then your making a totally unfair comparison. No--you are that's wht the comment about "botique countries."


Sorry Tom, we don't all have boats here in south florida, I can't sail to Cuba at a moment's whim, (let alone a country which is illegal for me to visit). :rolleyes: Nope--not illegal to visit. YOU ARE A FREE AMERICAN CITIZEN. It's not like being a citizen of the Soviet Union. You can visit all you want--you just can't spend money.


Obviously another country which you cannot provide any factual information which suggests my claims were wrong, but on the other hand, I can. Here's a start:

http://www.alternet.org/healthwellness/53087/
http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mydocs/state_and_revolution/democracy_in_cuba.htm (http://www.columbia.edu/%7Elnp3/mydocs/state_and_revolution/democracy_in_cuba.htm)
http://www.queensu.ca/philosophy/cuba/philosophical_issues.html

Hardly Commie.com btw. Go there. You can, it's legal. Just don't spend money.




The point is the US isn't some dandy place where everyone who wants to get ahead of the game, can. It doesn't work like that, get it through your head. I can want to be millionaire, but even if I work towards it, I probably won't make it. Probably won't--I'll grant you that, but you still can have a pretty good life.


Because this thread was originally about US presidents, then after pitiful claims made by, you, the topic has somewhat switched to American capitalism over all. It always switches. That's why it's a thread in OI in RevLeft.



But you know what I'll bite, because it's pretty easy to argue with this; just take a look at any news or info coming out of eastern Europe concerning economics or politics, it's all bad. The whole region has been plundered by private ownership, It also was bad after 60 years of Communism, too. That's why people changed--give Capitalism 60 years and things will be close to the way we have it in the USA.



Lol, so everyone who wants to have a decent life, simply can? Tell that to billions of people living on less than 2 dollars a day. Not in the world as yet--but China is makeing great strides--maybe in 60 years the world will have a good standard of living.



But yet only a few, including yourself (according to you) make it. You go on to boast about being "self-made", and only people who "want to" can get ahead and all this crap while millions are busting there asses off for the bare essentials. That's what I mean by you being an elitist. Where are you living? America has a pretty decent standard of living. Much better than the USSR ever did. A LOT better than the USSR ever did. The world needs to follow along--but that's what globalization is all about--and gradual melding the world onto a global economy and standard of living.



But are you down in the assembly line in your factory working day and night for a wage from somebody else? No, so no you can't make that argument. I built the assembly line. I started the business in my garage.

[Richard Nixon]

Where are you going with this argument? What is your point?

Also, I live in Texas, and we have plenty of that stuff as well, especially in the Rio Grande Valley where I live, which is the poorest area in the entire nation. Perhaps not as much as those Mexican states, but it's there.

I am saying that California, Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, and annexed portions of Colorado and Oklahoma are better off under the United States then Mexico.

[Plagueround]

Stuff.

I'm always intrigued by TomK's posts, because they seem to be built around the idea that one should be content because the standard of living in America is decent, or at least decent for enough people to not worry about the ones living in the 2009 version of Hoovervilles, or the reservationized indians without running water, or the homeless veterans swept under the rug, or the homeless pregnant mother I saw roasting in the heat the other day begging for change.

Sometimes, I genuinely wish I could develop an equally apathetic view point, it would make my life much easier.

[#FF0000]

I am saying that California, Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, and annexed portions of Colorado and Oklahoma are better off under the United States then Mexico.

And you think that had the U.S. not expanded into the west, things would play out just the same, and the territories under US control would still be nice while the Mexican territories would still be all messed up with poverty and squalor?

That's dumb.

[Anarkiwi]

If you don't believe me look at the corruption, drug wars, and poverty just across the border in Baja, Sonora, or Chihuahua compared to the wealth of California, Arizona, and Texas.

Look at the drug wars and poverty in Califonia(south central l.a) Arizona(hells angels,mongols etc) and Texas

[Anarkiwi]

I am saying that California, Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, and annexed portions of Colorado and Oklahoma are better off under the United States then Mexico.

Disagree it be the same except mexico doesent sweep its troubles under the carpet doesent have a huge propagande machine to hide its drug wars and poverty

[Bud Struggle]

I'm always intrigued by TomK's posts, because they seem to be built around the idea that one should be content because the standard of living in America is decent, or at least decent for enough people to not worry about the ones living in the 2009 version of Hoovervilles, or the reservationized indians without running water, or the homeless veterans swept under the rug, or the homeless pregnant mother I saw roasting in the heat the other day begging for change.

Sometimes, I genuinely wish I could develop an equally apathetic view point, it would make my life much easier.

Yea, there are bad places. And places with low standards of living and crime and illness. There are problems, to be sure. But on the whole the USA is a pretty nice place to live. Lots of BMWs on the highway and gated communities and fancy restaurants to be found, too. Not bliss for everyone, but a lot of good. I never saw that in the USSR or Poland or Romania, etc.

We are doing OK, but we also can do a lot better--that I'll grant, too.

[Dust Bunnies]

Yea, there are bad places. And places with low standards of living and crime and illness. There are problems, to be sure. But on the whole the USA is a pretty nice place to live. Lots of BMWs on the highway and gated communities and fancy restaurants to be found, too. Not bliss for everyone, but a lot of good. I never saw that in the USSR or Poland or Romania, etc.

We are doing OK, but we also can do a lot better--that I'll grant, too.

There are gated communities in Africa and I'm sure they have nice cars there too, must be heaven in there! In the USSR, Poland, or Romania the poor didn't exist, they weren't Communist or Socialist, they weren't perfect, but everyone had a job, got food, had a roof over their head, was able to take a shower, and had a bed to sleep in at the end of the day. The homeless of US cities have only food to eat from begging. I talked to a nun who was born in Poland (and she is quite old, so she was probably born 1940's/1950's). The nun said that Soviet Poland was great for the poor and how horrible the economy is now for the people. Sure she gave the bad points too, but that is a result of revisionism and forced disformed socialism.

[Richard Nixon]

Look at the drug wars and poverty in Califonia(south central l.a) Arizona(hells angels,mongols etc) and Texas

Only in some isolated areas and crime rates are still falling.

[Il Medico]

And there's a point here. There's bad Capitalist societies that treat their citizens like dirt and there good Capitalist societies that treat their citizens really sell.

Then there's bad Socialist societies that treat their citizens like dirt.

And here the comparison ends.

Living n the USA is the best the rich, poor and in between people ever had it.

It works.
Work one day in a working class job like a newspaper carrier or such, instead of sitting around on your fat ass making money off of your workers labor, then tell me how good the poor and working class have it in the United States.

[mykittyhasaboner]

No--you are that's wht the comment about "botique countries."

I'll just pretend like I understand this.

Nope--not illegal to visit. YOU ARE A FREE AMERICAN CITIZEN. It's not like being a citizen of the Soviet Union. You can visit all you want--you just can't spend money.Sure it's legal, but heavily restricted:


ENTRY/EXIT REQUIREMENTS /TRAVEL TRANSACTION LIMITATIONS: The Cuban Assets Control Regulations are enforced by the U.S. Treasury Department and affect all U.S. citizens and permanent residents wherever they are located, all people and organizations physically located in the United States, and all branches and subsidiaries of U.S. organizations throughout the world. The regulations require that persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction be licensed in order to engage in any travel-related transactions pursuant to travel to, from, and within Cuba. Transactions related to tourist travel are not licensable. This restriction includes tourist travel to Cuba from or through a third country such as Mexico or Canada. U.S. law enforcement authorities have increased enforcement of these regulations at U.S. airports and pre-clearance facilities in third countries. Travelers who fail to comply with Department of Treasury regulations could face civil penalties and criminal prosecution upon return to the United States. For the latest information on travel to Cuba and to view the most accurate and updated travel restrictions information, please see: http://www.treas.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/programs/cuba/cuba.shtml.General licenses are granted to the following categories of travelers, who are permitted to spend money to travel to Cuba and to engage in other transactions directly incident to the purpose of their travel, without the need to obtain a specific license from the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) (http://www.treas.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/):

I've read somewhere that Cuban airport workers won't stamp US passports upon request, but I'd rather not risk detention at the airport, at least while I'm forced to use an American passport. Don't worry though, I'll go one day, so thanks for the recommendation.




Go there. You can, it's legal. Just don't spend money.
Great argument.

Oh and how the fuck do you expect someone to not spend money while traveling?



Probably won't--I'll grant you that, but you still can have a pretty good life.I don't call this a pretty good life, sorry if I don't settle for living paycheck to paycheck, it's not doing anything to make my life free or fulfilling. I surely have it better than most in this country, and I feel lucky for that; but I'm not going to take on such an apathetic, elitist, idealist, and frankly stupid outlook on living that you have. I can't recall who said this, but it went something like this: "the happiness of others is directly related to my own" or something like that. I agree with that phrase wholly, and if there are people starving everyday on a scale of millions while few people have it OK or incredibly well, I wouldn't feel very good being one of those few people. For some one who is always talking about how were all equal, and how you can make it in capitalism simply if you want to; and how class struggle and communism is pointless and horrible, you totally neglect the wretched character and poor shape of our society.

It always switches. That's why it's a thread in OI in RevLeft.
No, its because your posting in this thread in OI on revleft.


It also was bad after 60 years of Communism, too. That's why people changed--give Capitalism 60 years and things will be close to the way we have it in the USA.:lol:



Not in the world as yet--but China is makeing great strides--maybe in 60 years the world will have a good standard of living.
Maybe this maybe that, say something of value....oh wait.


Where are you living? America has a pretty decent standard of living. Much better than the USSR ever did. A LOT better than the USSR ever did. The world needs to follow along--but that's what globalization is all about--and gradual melding the world onto a global economy and standard of living.
You talk a lot, but prove nothing.


I built the assembly line. I started the business in my garage.Congratulations on your successful business venture.

[FreeFocus]

1. All of the fuckers.
2. All of the fuckers.
3. All of the fuckers.
4. All of the fuckers.
5. All of the fuckers.
6. All of the fuckers.
7. All of the fuckers.
8. All of the fuckers.
9. All of the fuckers.
10. All of the fuckers.

[Anarkiwi]

Thats the best list yet:thumbup:

[Qayin]

Only in some isolated areas and crime rates are still falling.

source. Meth here in AZ is a huge fucking deal,with no end in site.When you can go to walgreens and buy the ingredients and cook it up in your house how the fuck do you fight that? Its easy money and people are always going to want it.

your pro-drug war people are epic lulz

[Bud Struggle]

I don't call this a pretty good life, sorry if I don't settle for living paycheck to paycheck, it's not doing anything to make my life free or fulfilling. Then why don't YOU make your life better instead of waiting for other people (society) to make it better. You are being a slacker cry baby.



I surely have it better than most in this country, and I feel lucky for that; but I'm not going to take on such an apathetic, elitist, idealist, and frankly stupid outlook on living that you have. So what's your answer, Stalin? :rolleyes:



I can't recall who said this, but it went something like this: "the happiness of others is directly related to my own" or something like that. I agree with that phrase wholly, and if there are people starving everyday on a scale of millions while few people have it OK or incredibly well, I wouldn't feel very good being one of those few people. So then if YOU feel that way do something about it. Why is it so improtant that the entire society has to revolve around your feelings?


For some one who is always talking about how were all equal, and how you can make it in capitalism simply if you want to; and how class struggle and communism is pointless and horrible, you totally neglect the wretched character and poor shape of our society.
Of course the SU was pretty poor and hungry too. There were lines for everything--unless you were a Communist Party official. The only thing they had there was plenty of was class distinction.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Then why don't YOU make your life better instead of waiting for other people (society) to make it better. You are being a slacker cry baby.
Who said I wasn't. Tom, you don't know shit about what I do with my life.



So what's your answer, Stalin? :rolleyes:Yes, Stalin.



So then if YOU feel that way do something about it.Lol, thanks for the tip.


Why is it so improtant that the entire society has to revolve around your feelings?Now your just misrepresenting what I said, typical of you though.


Of course the SU was pretty poor and hungry too. There were lines for everything--unless you were a Communist Party official. The only thing they had there was plenty of was class distinction.Yeah, yeah, yeah and the American ream is attainable on will alone, the Forbes list is comprised of self-made billionaires who worked for every penny they have, and the US is the harbinger of freedom and development among the rest of the world. I can do the totally change the subject and sarcastically diss America when it's got nothing to do with your reply; just how you can do it to the SU. It's fun isn't it?



Anyways, I'm not aiding in the derailment of this thread any longer, so I suggest you do the same and just give it up.

[Bud Struggle]

Who said I wasn't. Tom, you don't know shit about what I do with my life.I only know what you tell me:

Interests Music, Films, Drugs, Reading


Yes, Stalin. Good plan. :thumbup1:

[Richard Nixon]

source. Meth here in AZ is a huge fucking deal,with no end in site.When you can go to walgreens and buy the ingredients and cook it up in your house how the fuck do you fight that? Its easy money and people are always going to want it.

your pro-drug war people are epic lulz

There are whole bunch of factions in the anti-drug group. I for one would tolerate the legalization of marijuana as long as there are extreme sales taxes on it and would have to be noted on resumes. Besides those as you described are in a tiny minority and mostly either hardcore addicts or dumbass teenagers.

[Robert]

Yes, Stalin.

Come on, Boner, you don't mean that.

Bud, assuming he does mean it, why can't I "out" a Staliniist that easily? Is it in the grip? Or the stance?

[Bud Struggle]

Bud, assuming he does mean it, why can't I "out" a Staliniist that easily? Is it in the grip? Or the stance?

[Crocidile Hunter Mode]

Yea, he's a biggun! Seems to like both Stalin AND Lenin. Let's lure him in with a bit of dictatorship of the Proletariat! Talk that up a bit. Now ease him into worker control of production. Yes, easy, easy, Mention the Soviet Union a few times then wisper the word "Stalin"............GOT HIM!!!!!!:lol:

[khad]

No one has Theodore Roosevelt on the list? What are you, a bunch of jingoes?

[Richard Nixon]

No one has Theodore Roosevelt on the list? What are you, a bunch of jingoes?

You mean the progressive president who expanded the rights and benefits of the workers, helped establish clean food and medicene, and a strong supporter of the unions and the working class?

[khad]

You mean the progressive president who expanded the rights and benefits of the workers, helped establish clean food and medicene, and a strong supporter of the unions and the working class?
LMAO, nice try, cappie. Try the race warrior social darwinist who called on the United States to dominate the world, who tried to close all the homeless shelters in New York because the sight of the homeless offended him. The man who claimed imperialism as national anglo-saxon racial destiny.

[Richard Nixon]

LMAO, nice try, cappie. Try the race warrior social darwinist who called on the United States to dominate the world, who tried to close all the homeless shelters in New York because the sight of the homeless offended him. The man who claimed imperialism as national anglo-saxon racial destiny.

Both viewpoints are correct, you are just looking at it from a different angle.

[khad]

Both viewpoints are correct, you are just looking at it from a different angle.
Stalin was the greatest fucking humanitarian who ever lived. He added 20+ years to average life expectancy, oversaw one of the largest population booms in Russian history, and saved Europe from Nazi genocide. If you can praise Teddy, I can say that there are far greater men with far greater deeds.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Stalin was the greatest fucking humanitarian who ever lived. He added 20+ years to average life expectancy, oversaw one of the largest population booms in Russian history, and saved Europe from Nazi genocide. If you can praise Teddy, I can say that there are far greater men with far greater deeds.

Out of curiousity, do you have sources to back that statement up? I'm not denying it for more biased Capitalist viewpoints or anything. I'm just curious to see.

[Communist Theory]

The first 43 sucked...
Obama is up for grabs yet...

[khad]

Out of curiousity, do you have sources to back that statement up? I'm not denying it for more biased Capitalist viewpoints or anything. I'm just curious to see.
While some embellishment was necessary to make the point, the essential argument is valid. Just from the Wiki article on Soviet demographics (source Andreev, E.M., et al., Naselenie Sovetskogo Soiuza, 1922-1991. Moscow, Nauka, 1993.), here are the population figures for the early Soviet period:

January 1920: 137,727,000
January 1926: 148,656,000
January 1937: 162,500,000
January 1939: 168,524,000
June 1941: 196,716,000
January 1946: 170,548,000
January 1951: 182,321,000

The key data points are bolded. The 1920 and 1941 figures are hard to compare to the rest because at that time the borders of the USSR were in flux, but for the bolded points, the territorial size of the country was more or less constant. The 1946 figures includes the Baltic states, so overall during the war the population declined significantly (which really puts to rest the lie that Stalin killed more than Hitler)

Overall, the famines and repressions of the Stalin period had a minor demographic effect compared to improvements in overall health.

I'm not going to argue, however, that Stalin was a humanitarian. That was just sarcasm.

If you want to have a point of comparison, the figures for the Stalin-era USSR matches up favorably with population trends in the United States, which had the benefit of massive immigration (up until 1924). Both societies appear to have had a postwar baby boom.

1920: 106,021,537
1930: 122,775,046
1940: 132,164,569
1950: 150,520,798

[LOLseph Stalin]

Interesting infomation. Thanks. :)