A Question for the Board

[elijahcraig]

Does ANYONE here support Ceauseau?

I just would like to know.

I for one do not. He was called a "Good Communist" by the Bush I Administration. They also supported him until he was overthrown. Then, typically, denounced him and supported the new tyrants rising to power.

Comrade Ceauseau believes I am quite "ignorant" etc., because I have this view. I was wondering who else was of this class.

He also called Chomsky a "hippie fuck".

[timbaly]

You are not ignorant at all for holding that opinion. I believe you will see that most people here have the same opinion as you. There was a thread created about this topic a while ago, I'll try to find it.

Now why would the Bush administration say such a thing, what was the comment based on?

[Louis Pio]

Hehe man I don't support him but I know there is some little kid here who do, he has even taken his name (sorry for the arrogancy)
He run Rumania like his private estate so I really dunno why anyone would support him...

[Vinny Rafarino]

No true communist would support that man.

I find it difficult to support pretty much any member of the party after 1953.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 31 2004, 08:26 PM
No true communist would support that man.

I find it difficult to support pretty much any member of the party after 1953.
Not even Castro, or Mao? Just about the only guys that I don't support to some degree or another are Pol Pot, Ceasuscau, Milsoshevik, Gorbachev, and Kim il Sung/Kim Jong il.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

No true communist would support that man.

I find it difficult to support pretty much any member of the party after 1924.

[elijahcraig]

I think many "Communists" on this board (and others) get tied up in the "cult" (or whatever you would like to call it) of the leaders of the past. People treat Lenin like a God or Savior--when he would most likely of been disgusted by this. The same with Mao--though he may have not minded it as much.

It is something of an archaic rememberance, in the way of psychology.

[RedCeltic]

Nicolae Ceausescu’s rule in Romania was one of mismanagement. He ruined Romania.

He deployed secrete police to clamp down heavily on free speech and opposition. He created a “cult of personality” where he appointed family members into high positions in the government.

He created a massive debt, brought Romania from a fairly decent standard of living to one of poverty and starvation by exporting Romania’s resources. He also had the nifty idea of bulldozing ancient Romanian villages and moving the people into apartment complexes. I wouldn’t say there was much in the man’s character to praise.

As far as other communist leaders, well I’m not really a big fan of the Soviet Union in general, I have been reading recently about the Cuban missile crisis and it seems to me that John F. Kennedy gets way too much credit in American history classes for defusing the situation. In fact both Kennedy and Castro were pretty hawkish in the situation, and it was Khrushchev who had the insight to defuse the situation.

[elijahcraig]

What about the nukes in Turkey?

The fact is that the US has a double standard, and nearly (one word away from annhilation) caused a nuclear holocaust because of their double standard.

[RedCeltic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2004, 11:00 PM
What about the nukes in Turkey?

The fact is that the US has a double standard, and nearly (one word away from annhilation) caused a nuclear holocaust because of their double standard.
exactly, for the Soviet Union, the whole thing was about creating an even playing field. The US had nukes right on the boarder and could launch a nuke strike right into the heart of the Soviet Union, while the Soviet Union had to depend on long range nukes to strike the US from Soviet teritory.

Placing nukes in Cuba, in the famous "90 miles" from the US would give Cuba protection, and give the Soviets the ability to strike into the heart of the US which the US already was able to do to the Soviet Union.

Hawks in the US Government had proposed to bomb the missle sites in Cuba, which would have caused a nuclear war since the comanders on the ground had clearance to launch the missiles if attacked.

I've read recently that JFK had taken a hawkish position on this issue at first, and was on heavy medication at the time due to the back injury he suffered during WWII and so had clouded judgement.

[Invictus]

I've read recently that JFK had taken a hawkish position on this issue at first, and was on heavy medication at the time due to the back injury he suffered during WWII and so had clouded judgement.

Was it in Seymour Hersh's book that you read that?

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr+Apr 1 2004, 01:43 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr @ Apr 1 2004, 01:43 AM)
COMRADE [email protected] 31 2004, 08:26 PM
No true communist would support that man.

I find it difficult to support pretty much any member of the party after 1953.
Not even Castro, or Mao? Just about the only guys that I don&#39;t support to some degree or another are Pol Pot, Ceasuscau, Milsoshevik, Gorbachev, and Kim il Sung/Kim Jong il. [/b]
I said difficult, not impossible.


I fully support comrades Castro and Mao.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Comrade Ceauseau is an idiot who only mocks other peoples positions, I am surprised you are bothered.

[elijahcraig]

I&#39;m not bothered.

I just wanted to see if he would come out in the boardspace and debate it instead of sending PMs which reply to my arguments with "*Yawn*" and such.

He&#39;s a moron.

[Vinny Rafarino]

I just wanted to see if he would come out in the boardspace and debate it instead of sending PMs which reply to my arguments with "*Yawn*" and such.


No kidding. I find it to be sweetly amusing that anyone who still has to cover their sudden adoloscent hard-ons in their math class with their back-pack is dismissing the arguments of someone like you comrade Craig.

The boy must fancy himself to be another Henry VIII. Except not as "gay" looking. We all know that wearing wigs and hose will make you catch the gay, and that is a big no-no for "comrade" Ceasu-whateverthefuck.

[RedCeltic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2004, 12:30 AM

I&#39;ve read recently that JFK had taken a hawkish position on this issue at first, and was on heavy medication at the time due to the back injury he suffered during WWII and so had clouded judgement.

Was it in Seymour Hersh&#39;s book that you read that?
oh.. no sorry, it&#39;s not specificly about the cuban missile crisis.

I&#39;m taking an American Foreign Policy class and the professor said that part actually.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 1 2004, 12:26 AM
No true communist would support that man.

I find it difficult to support pretty much any member of the party after 1953.
I am intrigued to know your definition of Communist RAF.

[dark fairy]

that is a hard question... damn it ok there are things i will give him but i don&#39;t think he&#39;s right all the way :unsure:

[AC-Socialist]

I watched a documentary on ceucescu about a week ago, it was entitled "The king of communism" and i think it fits him perfectly. I mean, look at that palace in Bucharest, i dont think id be wrong in saying that its the largest in the world?

Monarchical-Communism? ill let you make your own minds up on that one....

[Vinny Rafarino]

I am intrigued to know your definition of Communist RAF.


There is only one definition of communism the party follows. Communism as it was defined by Karl Marx.

I am a bit surprised you would ask this question TAT.

[Wenty]

No true communist would support that man.

I find it difficult to support pretty much anyone after 1883

[synthesis]

No true communist would support that man.

I find it difficult to support pretty much anyone after 1066.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Lol people would have to screw up pretty badly to not have my support. Lenin, Trotsky, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Castro, Chavez... I totally support them. The only "communists" that I really don&#39;t like are Miloshevik, Caususcau, Pol Pot, and Kim Jong Il/Kim Il Sung, Gorbachev, and the guys in the Chinese "communist" party today. I think Stalin did some very bad, and some very good things, I am neither wholeheartedly for nor against him.

[CorporationsRule]

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 4 2004, 08:20 PM
There is only one definition of communism the party follows. Communism as it was defined by Karl Marx.

I am a bit surprised you would ask this question TAT.
Gee, that&#39;s not ridiculously dogmatic. Keep up the good work.