What I've learned in my time here...

[t_wolves_fan]

1>God doesn't exist because he can't be seen or quantified; yet oppression is assumed to exist even though it can't be seen, or quantified.

2>Violence against non-believers may be necessary to bring about the revolution, but the NYC and Washington Metro police are fascists for rounding protesters up and holding them in warehouse.

3>Hitler's rise to power in the Weimar Republic is evidence that Bush is a fascist dictator.

4>When a claim is made, it is up to the person to whom the claim was made to find the evidence.

5>The Democratic Party and the Kerry campaign spent a ton of money and time organizing poll watchers and attorneys during the election because they had no need to show fraud in our electoral system.

6>Communists were the real victims of the holocaust.

7>Despite the fact that the womens' rights movement has made the most strides under a capitalist system, capitalist systems are the worst at oppressing them.

8>Not being allowed to do drugs is evidence of fascist oppression.

9>No person has ever escaped poverty in a capitalist system; class is static and rigid and enforced by violence. Except that those who have succeeded were lucky.

10>Freedom of speech is severely lacking in the United States, and it would be so much better in a communist system where opposing voices' only option would be to leave (or perhaps suffer the violence advocated in #2)

11>Personal dislike of SUVs is reason enough for them to be banned.

12>The elderly and disabled are shit-out-of-luck if they want to visit the wilderness.

13>It's fine that so many different kinds of soap are produced, but it's absolutely wrong that there are so many labels on the soap.

14>Individuals' personal taste should not be a factor in determining what to produce.

15>People are perfectly free under capitalism to live a life that rejects materialism, but we still need a system that requires it.

16>It would be efficient for the government to select the price of each and every single product

17>It would be efficient for democratic votes to determine how much product is produced.

18>The only people who flee Cuba are criminals

19>The fact that so many people risk life and limb to come to the United States, while few if any do the same to leave, provides no evidence whatsoever of the capitalist system's superiority.

20>Killing 20 million people in the course of centralized reorganization of agriculture is glorious, but a few violent anarchists getting their heads cracked in for pointlessly trying to tear down a fence is state brutality.

21>Those thousands of protesters who lined the inaugural route, waving signs and heckling the administration, had their rights to free speech denied.



That's quite a list.

http://www.arkansasrockers.com/database/images/bill-lumberg.jpg

[dakewlguy]

Laffo.

[t_wolves_fan]

I wish I could say I was makin' this stuff up, but this is shit people have actually asserted.

[Lamanov]

Out of 10 right you pick out 1 stupid answer and claim that to be our general view.
Laffo

[redstar2000]

This subtle and nuanced summary of our views deserves careful attention from us all.

The responses of homo americanus ignoramus reveal what we're up against...a skull of Neanderthal proportions and an intellect to match.

It is very discouraging. :(

Fortunately, things do change. Even now there is a small but significant minority (perhaps numbering 3 to 5 million Americans) who have, to one degree or another, become at least semi-civilized.

Time is on our side, comrades. Someday there will be specimens of "t_wolves_fan" stuffed and mounted in museum cases for the edification of the young.

But no children under ten will be admitted; we don't want to frighten them or cause them to have nightmares.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Lamanov]

:lol:

[Urban Rubble]

I'm sure most of those quotes were exagerrated, taken out of context or spoken by some of our less intelligent and usually younger members.

However, there is at least one in there that you attempted to make fun of that just doesn't make sense.


7>Despite the fact that the womens' rights movement has made the most strides under a capitalist system, capitalist systems are the worst at oppressing them.

The Soviet Union gave the women the right to vote (and many other things) long before the U.S or Britain.

Care to concede that one chump ?

[NovelGentry]

I'm sure most of those quotes were exagerrated, taken out of context or spoken by some of our less intelligent and usually younger members.

I would assume that's why it was placed in separate post. Maybe t_wolves_fan would be so kind as to include links under each assertion to the exact post where that assertion was made.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Urban [email protected] 11 2005, 05:01 PM
I'm sure most of those quotes were exagerrated, taken out of context or spoken by some of our less intelligent and usually younger members.

However, there is at least one in there that you attempted to make fun of that just doesn't make sense.


7>Despite the fact that the womens' rights movement has made the most strides under a capitalist system, capitalist systems are the worst at oppressing them.

The Soviet Union gave the women the right to vote (and many other things) long before the U.S or Britain.

Care to concede that one chump ?
Uh, yeah, except that I'm not sure exactly what they really would have had to vote for under Lenin and Stalin. Except maybe how they preferred to be executed.

It also managed to beat the U.S. by a whopping 3 years.

And I'll concede that so long as I can point out that the suffrage movement began in the United States in the late 1840s, and that several capitalist countries such as New Zealand and Finland granted suffrage before the Soviet Union even existed.

That's called "winning the battle but losing the war".

[Blackberry]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 02:48 AM
6>Communists were the real victims of the holocaust. It was pointed out that whoever fit the description of "red" by the Nazis were the first to be targeted, between 1933 to 1938.

Jews were first sent to concentration camps in 1938, and then after 1939 the systematic murder of Jews, for being Jews, began.

There was nothing that said that "reds were the real victims" while "Jews were just minor victims".

If you can read with any sort of comprehension, read the following link (read slowly... please sound out the words you cannot pronounce properly, and have a dictionary at hand): http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...ndpost&p=508115 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=33233&view=findpost&p=508115)

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 05:33 PM

I'm sure most of those quotes were exagerrated, taken out of context or spoken by some of our less intelligent and usually younger members.

I would assume that's why it was placed in separate post. Maybe t_wolves_fan would be so kind as to include links under each assertion to the exact post where that assertion was made.
Read #4.

;)


I will try to get to it this weekend; but I will get to it.

[Zingu]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 05:48 PM

And I'll concede that so long as I can point out that the suffrage movement began in the United States in the late 1840s, and that several capitalist countries such as New Zealand and Finland granted suffrage before the Soviet Union even existed.


The Paris Commune gave women equal rights...in 1871.


Finland gave sufferage to women in 1918, which was during the Finnish Civil War between the "Red Guards" and the "White Army", Guess who granted the sufferage? At the time the Reds had seized control of all of Southern Finland, the only industrialized and urban part of Finland.

And, that was at the same time as the Russian Civil War.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Geee . . . t_wolves_fan really summed up communist ideas and showed how silly they were. Now I realize that America is a beautiful paradise, where everybody is happy and lives amongst enormous excess.
Everybody in the rest of the world is not unhappy as a result of this excess, but because their own evil communist governments won't let them go to America, where all immigrants are affluent free from any oppression.
Women are never objectified unless they bring it on themelves, everybody who isn't lazy is rich, oppression is just a buzz-word used by foriegn commies that no real American takes seriously.
SUVs run on gas that comes from a neverending well, and produces a pleasant and harmless perfume when burned, and as long as there's a market, to do anything but produce SUVs would be godless communism.
Commies may ask why this doesn't apply to some other goods, like marijuanna, but that is because we know certain other goods are evil, and will turn the American population in to poor lazy stoners. Soon they may wish they had free health care and education.
Thank-god t_wolves_fan has such a realistic world view, and was able to expose the truth to me.
I'm never going to take these red-white-and-blue contact lenses out ever again.

[t_wolves_fan]

I'm adding a new one:

22>The actions of an individual acting in a system define that system

Courtesy of Non-Sectarian Bastard! (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=33381)

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Comrade Blackberry+Feb 11 2005, 06:48 PM--> (Comrade Blackberry @ Feb 11 2005, 06:48 PM)
[email protected] 12 2005, 02:48 AM
6>Communists were the real victims of the holocaust. It was pointed out that whoever fit the description of "red" by the Nazis were the first to be targeted, between 1933 to 1938.

Jews were first sent to concentration camps in 1938, and then after 1939 the systematic murder of Jews, for being Jews, began.

There was nothing that said that "reds were the real victims" while "Jews were just minor victims".

If you can read with any sort of comprehension, read the following link (read slowly... please sound out the words you cannot pronounce properly, and have a dictionary at hand): http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...ndpost&p=508115 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=33233&view=findpost&p=508115) [/b]
Indeed, the "final soultion" to the "Jewish question" was decided in 1942 at the Wannsee Conference.

Of course if Mr. Wolf was any kind of student of history, then he would have known this. The fact that he does not (something I would expect many 12 year olds to know"), is highly revealing in regards to not only his education, but also intellect.


After all a high intellect gives the ability to learn after all, this individual has already proven from the opening post in this thread that he has no ability to learn.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Virgin Molotov [email protected] 11 2005, 05:52 PM
Geee . . . t_wolves_fan really summed up communist ideas and showed how silly they were. Now I realize that America is a beautiful paradise, where everybody is happy and lives amongst enormous excess.
Everybody in the rest of the world is not unhappy as a result of this excess, but because their own evil communist governments won't let them go to America, where all immigrants are affluent free from any oppression.
Women are never objectified unless they bring it on themelves, everybody who isn't lazy is rich, oppression is just a buzz-word used by foriegn commies that no real American takes seriously.
SUVs run on gas that comes from a neverending well, and produces a pleasant and harmless perfume when burned, and as long as there's a market, to do anything but produce SUVs would be godless communism.
Commies may ask why this doesn't apply to some other goods, like marijuanna, but that is because we know certain other goods are evil, and will turn the American population in to poor lazy stoners. Soon they may wish they had free health care and education.
Thank-god t_wolves_fan has such a realistic world view, and was able to expose the truth to me.
I'm never going to take these red-white-and-blue contact lenses out ever again.
:lol:

That was a piss-poor response. But it's typical on boards like this.

You see that someone has a point, so you ascribe certain beliefs to that person that, if he or she really believed it, would make that person a fool.

I can realize that women are objectified, for instance, and still point out how idiotic it is to claim "capitalism oppresses women the most". T'would not make me a hypocrite.

I can think marijuana should be legalized, which I do, and still think it's funny that someone's only complaint about how oppressed they are is that they can't get stoned.

I can be for more alternative fuels and higher CAFE standards (I've got $12 says you don't know what those are, so I'll tell you that you can't eat there), and still think it's stupid to ban products on the basis that you think they're purchased only out of Freudian need to prove how big your johnson is.

I don't know if you're going to be able to comprehend those facts, so let me give you some help, ace:



http://www.lara.com/store/images/sl-sc-300.jpg

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Enigma+Feb 11 2005, 06:04 PM--> (Enigma @ Feb 11 2005, 06:04 PM)
Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 11 2005, 06:48 PM

[email protected] 12 2005, 02:48 AM
6>Communists were the real victims of the holocaust. It was pointed out that whoever fit the description of "red" by the Nazis were the first to be targeted, between 1933 to 1938.

Jews were first sent to concentration camps in 1938, and then after 1939 the systematic murder of Jews, for being Jews, began.

There was nothing that said that "reds were the real victims" while "Jews were just minor victims".

If you can read with any sort of comprehension, read the following link (read slowly... please sound out the words you cannot pronounce properly, and have a dictionary at hand): http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...ndpost&p=508115 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=33233&view=findpost&p=508115)
Indeed, the "final soultion" to the "Jewish question" was decided in 1942 at the Wannsee Conference.

Of course if Mr. Wolf was any kind of student of history, then he would have known this. The fact that he does not (something I would expect many 12 year olds to know"), is highly revealing in regards to not only his education, but also intellect.


After all a high intellect gives the ability to learn after all, this individual has already proven from the opening post in this thread that he has no ability to learn. [/b]
Holy crap you're right.

Up to that point, Jews in Germany weren't hassled one single bit.

Oh, wait, you're an idiot, aren't you Mr. History expert? (http://www.ushmm.org/outreach/nlaw.htm)

You get a present too:

http://www.lara.com/store/images/sl-sc-300.jpg

[Invader Zim]

Ohh dear, it’s trying to be clever. Some advice for you my pedigree chum; stop digging, that hole is only going to get deeper.

The discrimination of the Jews had been a prominent issue in Nazi Germany prior to January 1942, but it was only after this point when they were shipped off too mass execution, also known as the "final solution".

The communists on the other hand were systematically butchered (like the Jews were in 1942 and after) from 1933 onwards.

It is also to be noted I am not an expert, I have yet to acquire a PhD. However despite my clearly lacking expertise, I get a warm and comforting feeling knowing that I know considerably more than idiots like you do. One should always focus on life’s positives rather than negatives.

I suggest you visit this fine institution: -

http://www.bafm.org.uk/pages/news%20pages/news%20pics/national%20library%20of%20wales.jpg

This is a library, they contain what we call books, you should invest some of your time reading books. We may make a scholar out of you yet!

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

You see that someone has a point, so you ascribe certain beliefs to that person that, if he or she really believed it, would make that person a fool.

Indeed! You don't say?
Now, whom do you suppose I might have been poking fun at?
The fact that you are capable of writing that without grasping the irony actually makes me me wonder if RedStar2000 is right; maybe you're not an ideologue, and maybe you're just plain dumb.


Up to that point, Jews in Germany weren't hassled one single bit.

Nobody has claimed that.
The only point anybody has tried to make is that Hitler targetted political opponents (primarily Communists) before he began the systematic slaughter of Jews. THe fact that this has even caused an argument is absurd.

[RevolutionaryLeftist]

dude, that is one nasty picture bro. please, no mr lumburg.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 07:00 PM
I'm adding a new one:

22>The actions of an individual acting in a system define that system

Courtesy of Non-Sectarian Bastard! (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=33381)
You still haven't refuted me. Why isn't selling something for hugh profits - the capitalist thing to do?

Let me guess your answer. The extremely lame flashlight picture and something along the lines of "stupid" or "that's stupid".

[dakewlguy]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 11 2005, 05:48 PM

There was nothing that said that "reds were the real victims" while "Jews were just minor victims".

Yes there was, see the thread titled 'mission accomplished'.

[NovelGentry]

Read #4.

I will try to get to it this weekend; but I will get to it.


Well unfortunate for you, I'm saying these assertions are not valid, nor is the idea that people here asserted such things valid, with the possible exception of new members as was pointed out. Thus, telling me to reread #4 wouldn't hold much ground.

So if you've "learned" such things here, you've done so only out of your own misinterpretation and stupidity.

[dakewlguy]

Originally posted by DJ-[email protected] 11 2005, 03:50 PM
Out of 10 right you pick out 1 stupid answer and claim that to be our general view.
Laffo
Hey buddy you should be on there for claiming every scientific discovery in the past 150 years has confirmed dialectic materialism.

[NovelGentry]

I'm adding a new one:

22>The actions of an individual acting in a system define that system


I'm not seeing where he says this. I searched for the quote in the thread, and read the entire thread over, and it seems you are the first to bring this type of statement up, implying that is what he's saying.

However, what he's saying is quite different from this.

It is not that the actions of the individual define that system, moreso that the system defines these actions. "Only under capitalism" so to speak.

Like I said before, these things you have "learned" are born of your own idiocy. I'm going to suggest you don't come up with the links, unless you want all of your supposed "rules of communists" to be pointed out as the product of your own misguided thinking and logic.

But if you implied this is what he was saying, that's obviously what he's saying.

I've used the following product to search within your skull:

http://www.lara.com/store/images/sl-sc-300.jpg

After penetrating the nearly three inch bone on all sides I came to a walnut sized enclosure which contained nothing except a bit of grit and dust.

[NovelGentry]

You see that someone has a point, so you ascribe certain beliefs to that person that, if he or she really believed it, would make that person a fool.

Sounds like this list I found:



1>God doesn't exist because he can't be seen or quantified; yet oppression is assumed to exist even though it can't be seen, or quantified.

2>Violence against non-believers may be necessary to bring about the revolution, but the NYC and Washington Metro police are fascists for rounding protesters up and holding them in warehouse.

3>Hitler's rise to power in the Weimar Republic is evidence that Bush is a fascist dictator.

4>When a claim is made, it is up to the person to whom the claim was made to find the evidence.

5>The Democratic Party and the Kerry campaign spent a ton of money and time organizing poll watchers and attorneys during the election because they had no need to show fraud in our electoral system.

6>Communists were the real victims of the holocaust.

7>Despite the fact that the womens' rights movement has made the most strides under a capitalist system, capitalist systems are the worst at oppressing them.

8>Not being allowed to do drugs is evidence of fascist oppression.

9>No person has ever escaped poverty in a capitalist system; class is static and rigid and enforced by violence. Except that those who have succeeded were lucky.

10>Freedom of speech is severely lacking in the United States, and it would be so much better in a communist system where opposing voices' only option would be to leave (or perhaps suffer the violence advocated in #2)

11>Personal dislike of SUVs is reason enough for them to be banned.

12>The elderly and disabled are shit-out-of-luck if they want to visit the wilderness.

13>It's fine that so many different kinds of soap are produced, but it's absolutely wrong that there are so many labels on the soap.

14>Individuals' personal taste should not be a factor in determining what to produce.

15>People are perfectly free under capitalism to live a life that rejects materialism, but we still need a system that requires it.

16>It would be efficient for the government to select the price of each and every single product

17>It would be efficient for democratic votes to determine how much product is produced.

18>The only people who flee Cuba are criminals

19>The fact that so many people risk life and limb to come to the United States, while few if any do the same to leave, provides no evidence whatsoever of the capitalist system's superiority.

20>Killing 20 million people in the course of centralized reorganization of agriculture is glorious, but a few violent anarchists getting their heads cracked in for pointlessly trying to tear down a fence is state brutality.

21>Those thousands of protesters who lined the inaugural route, waving signs and heckling the administration, had their rights to free speech denied.

[dakewlguy]

Sounds like this list I found:
As far as I know they are not claiming these are the beliefs of all Marxists, just pointing out how stupid some peoples beliefs on this site can be, in a nice funny compiled form.

[NovelGentry]

As far as I know, no one has expressed these beliefs on this site. They are general summaries of points made filtered through the capitalist lense, as I have pointed out with his misrepresentation of Non-Sectarian Bastard. His supposed proof that this is what people think is his own assumptions on the points we've made, based on broken logic and lacking knowledge in fields such as history.

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by dakewlguy+Feb 11 2005, 07:19 PM--> (dakewlguy @ Feb 11 2005, 07:19 PM)
DJ-[email protected] 11 2005, 03:50 PM
Out of 10 right you pick out 1 stupid answer and claim that to be our general view.
Laffo
Hey buddy you should be on there for claiming every scientific discovery in the past 150 years has confirmed dialectic materialism. [/b]
You are talking about it like i said it's a god and not a general theory... i didn't [even] say it's a law... oh!.. and you said that it was disproved.... because it's a psychological construction of society with no order. :lol: .From what i see it stands especially for society - remember? - Historical materialism ?!
My claim stands. When more advanced and concrete concept that has general application is found i&#39;ll keep up, until then, work on your &#39;arguments&#39; and sources, buddy <_<

[dakewlguy]

No I didn&#39;t say I disproved it. Can you even read? Head on back to the thread, buddy. You&#39;ll see I showed how not all research confirms it. This is what your original claim was. You in an attempt at strawman&#39;ing me tried to change the argument to one about whether dialectic materialism was correct or not, but I have not got involved in such discussions at all, because they are irrelevant to the point I have taken issue with.

Nowhere have I claimed that dialectic materialism is a psychological construction of society. Go find a quote of mine to prove it or shut up. I note you have not replied to the thread you made about it, too.
Lets see what I said about it in particular shall we:


Every scientific discovery in the last 150 years confirms that their view of the world and phenomena through dialectical materialism is correct
No they haven&#39;t. Especially in the field of sociology. I could give a huge list but really that&#39;s a lot of work and I only need one to disprove your statement. Studies in Ethnomethodology (1967) Harold Garfinkel. This research did not confirm dialectical materialism because its hypothesis was that society was a psychological construction and that no order exists in the world at all.

Now, where in this do I argue against dialectic materialism myself? I&#39;m fairly sure the author is one Harold Garfinkel, not Da Kewlguy. And the research piece is just an example, I could have chosen from one of thousands of pieces of research that do not confirm dialectic materialism.




As far as I know, no one has expressed these beliefs on this site. They are general summaries of points made filtered through the capitalist lense, as I have pointed out with his misrepresentation of Non-Sectarian Bastard. His supposed proof that this is what people think is his own assumptions on the points we&#39;ve made, based on broken logic and lacking knowledge in fields such as history.
I can attest that I too have seen the following claimed by certain people in my short time here:
6>Communists were the real victims of the holocaust.

7>Despite the fact that the womens&#39; rights movement has made the most strides under a capitalist system, capitalist systems are the worst at oppressing them.

And have called people on them.

[Lamanov]

...Studies in Ethnomethodology (1967) Harold Garfinkel. This research did not confirm dialectical materialism because its hypothesis was that society was a psychological construction and that no order exists in the world at all.

i understanded that hypothesis here mentioned is one of dialectical materialism. Am I wrong, did i missunderstand, is it Garfinkel&#39;s hypothesis ? If I did I appologise, English is my second language.

[dakewlguy]

Yeah, your first is &#39;retard&#39;.

[NovelGentry]

6>Communists were the real victims of the holocaust.

7>Despite the fact that the womens&#39; rights movement has made the most strides under a capitalist system, capitalist systems are the worst at oppressing them.


No one said communists were the "real victims" or that Jews were not victims -- this is what I&#39;m saying. You make a blanket assumption because we bring up the point that it was NOT ONLY Jews who were persecuted. Communists were victims of much of the same crimes as Jews in Nazi Germany, this is a historical fact that you cannot refute.

Even if such a statements as, "Communists were the real victimes of the holocaust" were made, your use of it as a method to somehow decrease the validity of the whole of communist arguments is weak at best.

This is nothing more than a cheap tactic to try and debase the whole of communist arguments via the assumptions made by one ill-witted capitalist. These are not direct statements, direct quotes, or even the implied meaning behind the statements he used to derive such idiocy, they are his own creation, manufactured by using the statements of others out of context and polarizing what was actually said.

Where I say: "Communists were also persecuted by Nazis"
He says: "This guy tried to say communists were the real victims of the holocaust."

Well guess, what, they were real victims, as real as Jews, Homosexuals, and anyone else who Hitler decided he didn&#39;t like.

Where I say: "Capitalism has done little to improve the oppression of women, class society remains a method by which a number of women are pushed into prostitution, pornography, etc. Their right to vote is meaningless, as is all of ours."
He says: "This guy tried to say women are more oppressed under capitalism than any other system."

See the problem?

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 10:18 PM
Yeah, your first is &#39;retard&#39;.
:D aaah.. name calling
;) nice, mr. sociologist

[dakewlguy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 10:21 PM


No one said communists were the "real victims" or that Jews were not victims -- this is what I&#39;m saying. You make a blanket assumption because we bring up the point that it was NOT ONLY Jews who were persecuted. Communists were victims of much of the same crimes as Jews in Nazi Germany, this is a historical fact that you cannot refute.

Even if such a statements as, "Communists were the real victimes of the holocaust" were made, your use of it as a method to somehow decrease the validity of the whole of communist arguments is weak at best.

This is nothing more than a cheap tactic to try and debase the whole of communist arguments via the assumptions made by one ill-witted capitalist. These are not direct statements, direct quotes, or even the implied meaning behind the statements he used to derive such idiocy, they are his own creation, manufactured by using the statements of others out of context and polarizing what was actually said.

Where I say: "Communists were also persecuted by Nazis"
He says: "This guy tried to say communists were the real victims of the holocaust."

Well guess, what, they were real victims, as real as Jews, Homosexuals, and anyone else who Hitler decided he didn&#39;t like.

Where I say: "Capitalism has done little to improve the oppression of women, class society remains a method by which a number of women are pushed into prostitution, pornography, etc. Their right to vote is meaningless, as is all of ours."
He says: "This guy tried to say women are more oppressed under capitalism than any other system."

See the problem?
Your points are valid in a lot of cases, and often what you describe is used by members of all political leanings. But in the two cases I have highlighted I disagree that I have done this.


Fascists silenced free speech on a grand scale, and sent people (&#39;Reds" in particular) to concentration camps.





As for wife beating, in all societies, and pre-society in the prehistoric ages, men have been dominant(regardless of this being right or wrong), so no it is not a result of Capitalism.
But capitalism perpetuates it. There has also often (Though not in all societies) been massive wealth-inequality - but under current circumstances, capitalism is clearly the driving force behind that inequality

How has Capitalism, in and of itself, lead to greater equality between men and women?
[These posts challenge the idea that in the move from Feudalism to Capitalism, gender equality increased.]

I don&#39;t think I am generalizing too much in summarizing these as:
"Communists were the real victims of the holocaust."
and
"Despite the fact that the womens&#39; rights movement has made the most strides under a capitalist system, capitalist systems are the worst at oppressing them."

[dakewlguy]

Originally posted by DJ&#045;[email protected] 11 2005, 10:27 PM

:D aaah.. name calling
;) nice, mr. sociologist
I humbly request your attention to a number of other threads at the top of the front page of "opposing ideologies", where I have made a few small requests of you regarding backing up your claims.

[NovelGentry]

Your points are valid in a lot of cases, and often what you describe is used by members of all political leanings. But in the two cases I have highlighted I disagree that I have done this.

So you feel it is a general argument of communists that Communists were the "REAL" targets of Nazi Germany (whatever real is supposed to mean there)?

You also feel it is the general argument of communists that capitalism oppresses women more than any other system?

Can you point me to where people actually said this? -- all I need is a link to the post.


These posts challenge the idea that in the move from Feudalism to Capitalism, gender equality increased.

As they should, but this is different than saying it oppresses them more.

Maybe you need a reminder on what he said our argument was: "capitalist systems are the worst at oppressing them."


I don&#39;t think I am generalizing too much in summarizing these as:
"Communists were the real victims of the holocaust."
and
"Despite the fact that the womens&#39; rights movement has made the most strides under a capitalist system, capitalist systems are the worst at oppressing them."

Then surely it would not be a case of generalization if I were to say you believed:

1) Communists did not suffer the same fate of Jews under Nazi Germany
2) Capitalism has equalized men and women.

[dakewlguy]

Can you point me to where people actually said this? -- all I need is a link to the post.
The thread titles for the two discussions are both at the top of OI right now, one is called &#39;mission accomplished&#39; and one &#39;the abuse of women&#39; or something similar.


So you feel it is a general argument of communists that Communists were the "REAL" targets of Nazi Germany (whatever real is supposed to mean there)?

You also feel it is the general argument of communists that capitalism oppresses women more than any other system?
No, I feel that certain people on this board think that, because they have said it.


As they should, but this is different than saying it oppresses them more.

Maybe you need a reminder on what he said our argument was: "capitalist systems are the worst at oppressing them."
It asserts that Capitalism and not general trends in society are the cause of gender inequality. Therefore Capitalism should have the biggest gender divide.


Then surely it would not be a case of generalization if I were to say you believed:

1) Communists did not suffer the same fate of Jews under Nazi Germany
2) Capitalism has equalized men and women.
1. Yes. I feel that the Jews were bigger victims of the holocaust.
2. Yes to an extent.

[dakewlguy]

If you want a real good example of generalizing and blanket assumptions I&#39;d reccommend http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...=20#entry509059 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?act=ST&f=8&t=33381&st=20#entry509059) starting from the point our dear friend DJ-TC wades in.

[Lamanov]

Thats pathetic. :lol:

1 > I made a statement.
2 > You wanted to disprove it with a research results. [I assumed you agreed with]
3 > Research results incorrect.
4 > You make a totally different story out of it.

Nice.

[NovelGentry]

The thread titles for the two discussions are both at the top of OI right now, one is called &#39;mission accomplished&#39; and one &#39;the abuse of women&#39; or something similar.

I&#39;ve read both these and searched them for such quotes, I cannot find them anywhere. I see many arguments on related subject, but no where do I see anyone saying what is implied by these statements.

If you&#39;d be so kind as to point out the specific posts or quote them along with the name of who said it, you might have something.


No, I feel that certain people on this board think that, because they have said it.

Who, and where? It seems to me like you&#39;re still bending their words to what you wish they had said so that you may discredit their points in total.


It asserts that Capitalism and not general trends in society are the cause of gender inequality. Therefore Capitalism should have the biggest gender divide.

No, it asserts that capitalism has done little or nothing to change these trends in society, and on the contrary, upholds them. Again, you&#39;re bending the words.


1. Yes. I feel that the Jews were bigger victims of the holocaust.
2. Yes to an extent.

You say "Yes" and then say something completely different from what I implied you were saying.

"I feel that the Jews were bigger victims of the holocaust" is not the same as saying "Communists did not suffer the same fate of Jews under Nazi Germany."

If you cannot see the difference you need to brush up on your English.

[dakewlguy]

2 > You wanted to disprove it with a research results. [I assumed you agreed with]
No, I did not want to disprove it nor claim to disprove it anywhere.

3 > Research results incorrect.
I&#39;m fairly sure you have not even read the research buddy. The correctness of the results is not relevant anyway. What is, is that the research does not confirm what you claim.

4 > You make a totally different story out of it.
Ya lol im such a capitalist liar aren&#39;t I.

[NovelGentry]

If you want a real good example of generalizing and blanket assumptions I&#39;d reccommend http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...=20#entry509059 starting from the point our dear friend DJ-TC wades in.

Generalizations and blanket assumptions are made throughout this board, and throughout any political debate, however, what has yet to be done by anyone on "our side" to my knowledge is using these blanket assumption to further extend the opposing argument out of context as to discredit the real argument.

On the contrary, seasoned members, and even new members such as DJ-TC have taken the time to quote EXACTLY what has been said, or at the very least to point to it via a link. This is a far cry different from the purpose of this thread, which has been started with no quotes, no points of reference, and has made simple statements, in short, putting words into our mouths.

This does occur elsewhere, but it occurs within the context of the argument, so that all people can see and judge for themselves. Again, this is only a cheap (and I must say horribly defended) attempt to discredit the whole of what has been said by presenting these generalizations and blanket statements as what has been said.

[Lamanov]

The correctness of the results is not relevant anyway. What is, is that the research does not confirm what you claim.

:lol: :P :D :lol:

[dakewlguy]

Sorry, I might&#39;ve given the wrong threads.
http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...opic=33233&st=0 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=33233&st=0) Virgin Molotov Cocktail&#39;s post has the "(&#39;Reds" in particular)" comment.

The gender thread is http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...pic=33252&st=20 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=33252&st=20) and the quotes I mention are quoted by me in there.


Who, and where? It seems to me like you&#39;re still bending their words to what you wish they had said so that you may discredit their points in total.
Virgin Molotov Cocktail and whoever I quoted in the other thread, I can&#39;t remember their names.


No, it asserts that capitalism has done little or nothing to change these trends in society, and on the contrary, upholds them. Again, you&#39;re bending the words.
Rechecking the thread I guess nowhere does anyone state conditions have worsened. But certainly Capitalism is said to be intrinsicaly Sexist and a cause of inequality. "Last I checked any semblance of equality is do to the generations of women (and men) fighting for this equality" suggests this.


"I feel that the Jews were bigger victims of the holocaust" is not the same as saying "Communists did not suffer the same fate of Jews under Nazi Germany."

I disagree. The first statement is agreeing with the second, and then developing the detail more. Jews must by being bigger victims of the holocaust suffer a different fate to Communists.

[NovelGentry]

Virgin Molotov Cocktail and whoever I quoted in the other thread, I can&#39;t remember their names.


Well for starter&#39;s VMC&#39;s post was about Fascism, not JUST Nazi Germany.

Furthermore "Reds" are "in particular" -- they are a particular group, who were targetted by Fascism, including the fascism of Nazi Germany.

I&#39;ve already pointed out the difference in the quotes you mentioned in comparison to the supposed "rule" that "has been learned" by the original thread starter here.


Rechecking the thread I guess nowhere does anyone state conditions have worsened. But certainly Capitalism is said to be intrinsicaly Sexist and a cause of inequality. "Last I checked any semblance of equality is do to the generations of women (and men) fighting for this equality" suggests this.

Then disagree with it being that way, don&#39;t support the assumption that we believe it is MORE sexist than other systems.


I disagree. The first statement is agreeing with the second, and then developing the detail more. Jews must by being bigger victims of the holocaust suffer a different fate to Communists.

Well if you agree they are the same, and you agree that is truth, maybe you should recheck your history.

[Blackberry]

Originally posted by dakewlguy+Feb 12 2005, 07:09 AM--> (dakewlguy &#064; Feb 12 2005, 07:09 AM)
Originally posted by Comrade Blackberry+Feb 11 2005, 05:48 PM--> (Comrade Blackberry &#064; Feb 11 2005, 05:48 PM)
There was nothing that said that "reds were the real victims" while "Jews were just minor victims".
[/b]
Yes there was, see the thread titled &#39;mission accomplished&#39;.[/b]
It was called "Our Mission Is Complete Here" (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=33233&view=findpost&p=506516), not "Mission Accomplished".

The quote in question, which I had to take up a wasteful amount of time to look (why did you not link it for me?), could have more than one meaning.


Virgin Molotov [email protected]
Fascists silenced free speech on a grand scale, and sent people (&#39;Reds" in particular) to concentration camps.

In this case, he just wanted to make a specific reference to "Reds" in this instance, since they were the subject matter.

If the RIGHT=FREEDOM was speaking of Jews in his post, I am sure Virgin Molotov Cocktail would have said "Jews in particular".


Virgin Molotov Cocktail
The only point anybody has tried to make is that Hitler targetted political opponents (primarily Communists) before he began the systematic slaughter of Jews. The fact that this has even caused an argument is absurd.


Absurd indeed.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Holy fuck, I think you&#39;ve hit a new low.



Then surely it would not be a case of generalization if I were to say you believed:

1) Communists did not suffer the same fate of Jews under Nazi Germany
2) Capitalism has equalized men and women.

1. Yes. I feel that the Jews were bigger victims of the holocaust.
2. Yes to an extent.

1. You&#39;re addressing a different question entirely than the one asked. The question has concerned, and contines to concern, whether or not communists were victims of systematic round-up and murder, much as suffered by Jews. Just admit that, "Yes, that is correct, Communists were, following Hitler&#39;s rise to power, victims of disturbing systematic oppression, internment, and murder." - Admit this, then you can carry on a stupid argument about "Who suffered more" with anybody who feels so inclined. For the record mind you, I imagine it&#39;s all the same to the individuals who died.

2. To an extent? What, is it just that men remain "more equal"?

[dakewlguy]

It was called "Our Mission Is Complete Here" (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=33233&view=findpost&p=506516), not "Mission Accomplished".

The quote in question, which I had to take up a wasteful amount of time to look (why did you not link it for me?), could have more than one meaning.
Yeah sorry I didn&#39;t remember the exact name, but really it&#39;s not like there is a huge amount of active threads in OI to search through.


In this case, he just wanted to make a specific reference to "Reds" in this instance, since they were the subject matter.

If the RIGHT=FREEDOM was speaking of Jews in his post, I am sure Virgin Molotov Cocktail would have said "Jews in particular".
I disagree. While they in particular did not respond in the thread, others did, defending the notion that the Reds in particular were sent to concentration camps, moreso than Jews.


You&#39;re addressing a different question entirely than the one asked. The question has concerned, and contines to concern, whether or not communists were victims of systematic round-up and murder, much as suffered by Jews. Just admit that, "Yes, that is correct, Communists were, following Hitler&#39;s rise to power, victims of disturbing systematic oppression, internment, and murder." - Admit this, then you can carry on a stupid argument about "Who suffered more" with anybody who feels so inclined. For the record mind you, I imagine it&#39;s all the same to the individuals who died.

No I&#39;m not. The question asks if Communists and Jews suffered different fates in Nazi Germany. Nowhere in that question does it ask what you just reffered to. My answer to the question is not only direct, "yes." but I then elaborate on how in particular I feel they were treated differently.



2. To an extent? What, is it just that men remain "more equal"?
This is not part of the question asked by NovelGentry.

[Guest1]

The fate was death.

The fate was concentration camps, and death.

Since communists were systematically sent to concentration camps, and killed, and jews were systematically sent to concentration camps, and killed, the fate is the same.

No one argued how many died, or how many were subjected to this fate, only whether the fate was the same.

Now stop being an anal-retentive bastard, you&#39;re annoying me and I haven&#39;t slept in 40 hours.

Here, have a free warning point. WoOt&#33; 4 more, and you can have a special, collector&#39;s edition banning&#33;

Oh... and as you have admitted being a supporter of Capitalism, I will make you acquainted with the Revolutionary Left guidelines:


What is restriction, and what is the Opposing Ideologies forum?

Restriction is a measure the membership uses to focus the debate on this site. We are a group of progressive Leftists, after all. That is about as much as many of us have in common however. We disagree on how the society we envision will work, how best to emancipate the workers and many other issues. We need to debate these things respectfully, amongst ourselves. So we restrict debate about whether we should emancipate the workers at all to the Opposing Ideologies forum.

This is where all right-wingers are sent. This is where anyone who is too disruptive to proper debate is sent. There are other reasons for being restricted to OI of course, but generally, it requires behavior that is deemed in conflict with the membership&#39;s vision for this site.
Thus, you are now restricted.

Enjoy.

[CommieBastard]

1>God doesn&#39;t exist because he can&#39;t be seen or quantified; yet oppression is assumed to exist even though it can&#39;t be seen, or quantified.

Oppression can be seen and quantified.
It is the extent to which a system decreases the variance in information and mental states.


2>Violence against non-believers may be necessary to bring about the revolution, but the NYC and Washington Metro police are fascists for rounding protesters up and holding them in warehouse.

They are not fascist. They happen to believe in their version of the truth, and that it justifies what they do. Personally, I do not blame them for this. They have come to their beliefs because they have a myopic world view that has been constantly reinforced by the society around them.


4>When a claim is made, it is up to the person to whom the claim was made to find the evidence.

Very much so. If you rely on someone else to provide you with evidence then you are leaving yourself prone to being manipulated by the extent or type of information given. No wonder you have your World view...


6>Communists were the real victims of the holocaust.

They were some of the victims and some of the first, I don&#39;t think anyone has said anything beyond this.

8>Not being allowed to do drugs is evidence of fascist oppression.

By the definition of oppression i gave earlier the law that prevents drug use is one that decreases the variance in mental states.
You see, the brain is a lot like a neural network. The larger the system the more complex it can be in it&#39;s interrelations. That is to say, the more experiences and knowledge you have the more consciousness you have, as your consciousness is not held in what you know, but the complex interrelations between that data. The data itself would make us little more than a computer.
What is more, almost all of the processes of our conscious experience require some kind of drug. This includes hunger, pleasure, pretty much everything.
A drug is just another experience, and to outlaw it is to outlaw developing thought.

I don&#39;t have the time to answer the rest right now, I may some other time...

[dakewlguy]

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 12 2005, 03:31 PM


Oh... and as you have admitted being a supporter of Capitalism, I will make you acquainted with the Revolutionary Left guidelines:

No, I don&#39;t think I have. In my time here I have disagreed with quite a few claims of Marxists on here, but none of them have been core Marxist issues. I&#39;m fairly sure I have not once criticized Marxism or claimed Capitalism is a superior system.

Also VMC if you indeed did only mention reds to add context to your point, and were not claiming that Reds were the particular victims of Nazi Germany, then apologies for mistaking what you meant. Others who then went on to defend what you said obviously did think that Reds were the main victims, though.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 06:41 PM
Others who then went on to defend what you said obviously did think that Reds were the main victims, though.
I don&#39;t think they meant exactly that - but I will say it may have been articulated poorly in a few cases.

w00t.

[Raisa]

I am sorry that my comrades are actually taking the time to argue with you&#33;

"After I read this:1

God doesn&#39;t exist because he can&#39;t be seen or quantified; yet oppression is assumed to exist even though it can&#39;t be seen, or quantified."


That is shit. Opression does exist, just cause maybe you never seen it, alot of people have been brutalized and maimed by it. Just because maybe you got it so damn good in your life that you can believe this system is fine, doesnt mean it is....it just means your ignorant.

[CommieBastard]

were not claiming that Reds were the particular victims of Nazi Germany, then apologies for mistaking what you meant.


Others who then went on to defend what you said obviously did think that Reds were the main victims, though.

Particular and main mean two different things. Something that is particular is by no means the largest set within a set. It is simply just a specific one of the sets within the set, regardless of extent, comparitive or absolute.

[dakewlguy]

Particular can mean &#39;especially&#39;. For example, I like milkshake, in particular chocolate milkshake. In this statement &#39;in particular&#39; is not just used to highlight an example of milkshake.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 07:29 PM








I&#39;m not seeing where he says this. I searched for the quote in the thread, and read the entire thread over, and it seems you are the first to bring this type of statement up, implying that is what he&#39;s saying.

However, what he&#39;s saying is quite different from this.

It is not that the actions of the individual define that system, moreso that the system defines these actions. "Only under capitalism" so to speak.

OK, let&#39;s try this:

A capitalist points out how communism involves authoritarian central control that leads to boatloads of innocent civilian deaths because of historical examples.

The communists on this site complain that "that doesn&#39;t represent real communism".

Those communists are making exactly the same argument as I am making about how selling a baby&#39;s name to the highest bidder is not "the capitalist thing to do".

Let&#39;s sum up:

Capitalist argument: Communism kills, look at the history (USSR, China, Cuba).

Communist argument: It&#39;s the "capitalist thing to do" to sell a baby&#39;s name to the highest bidder.

Both refute the other&#39;s argument by saying, "Those actions don&#39;t define the system".

You with me?

Now, here is the subtle distinction:

In all of history, there have been a certain number of communist regimes. Without exception all states that have claimed to be operating under the communist system have had the qualities of centralized, authoritarian control that has killed millions upon millions of civilians. USSR, China, Cuba, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Cambodia, you name it.

However, on the baby-name-selling issue, this is the first example I&#39;ve ever heard of where a couple is using the capitalist system to sell their baby&#39;s name to the highest bidder. I&#39;m quite certain it&#39;s happened in a few other circumstances, but in fact in the, oh let&#39;s say 200 year history of capitalism, this is the first example most people would say they&#39;ve heard of it.

In fact, I&#39;m willing to be the vast, vast, vast majority of capitalists would strongly disapprove of selling a baby&#39;s name, because the vast, vast, vast majority does not view a baby&#39;s name as a product or service which should be sold to the highest bidder. It&#39;s in that category with sex, murder for hire, body parts, babies (whole ones, not just names), drugs, etc. That is to say, because 95% of capitalists do not think those products should be on the market, it is a misnomer to say the system supports their sale.

Ya get it, sport?

I have more, but I&#39;m not really sure I&#39;ve even made a dent anyway, so I&#39;m not going to bother with it.

Have a great day.

[t_wolves_fan]

1>God doesn&#39;t exist because he can&#39;t be seen or quantified; yet oppression is assumed to exist even though it can&#39;t be seen, or quantified.

A general argument based on comparing the responses this thread (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=20658&st=0) with VMT&#39;s response in this thread (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=33334&st=20) (about halfway down)...

"The most disturbing and pervasive manifestations of oppression are the ones that can&#39;t be seen or quantified."


2>Violence against non-believers may be necessary to bring about the revolution, but the NYC and Washington Metro police are fascists for rounding protesters up and holding them in warehouse.

Here RedStar advocates violence (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=32630&hl=violent+revolution) against capitalists, which several posters support.

But then when asked how he is "oppressed" he complains that (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=33334&st=20): "If thousands of people (including innocent bystanders) are rounded up in New York City and imprisoned in an abandoned bus barn with toxic crap on the floors and knowingly held for illegal periods of time..."


3>Hitler&#39;s rise to power in the Weimar Republic is evidence that Bush is a fascist dictator.

But there were "fascist elements" built in to the Weimar Republic from the beginning... (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=33334&hl=weimar&st=20)


4>When a claim is made, it is up to the person to whom the claim was made to find the evidence.

A claim is made that U.S. code is packed with "fascist provisions", I get the RedStar repoonse that (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=33334&hl=weimar&st=20) "Write your own books, guy...or seek out the ones already written. I have better ways to spend my time."

Then there is this example of stupidity from page 3 of this very thread: "Very much so. If you rely on someone else to provide you with evidence then you are leaving yourself prone to being manipulated by the extent or type of information given. No wonder you have your World view..."


5>The Democratic Party and the Kerry campaign spent a ton of money and time organizing poll watchers and attorneys during the election because they had no need to show fraud in our electoral system.

RedStar says the following: (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=33334&hl=weimar&st=20) "There are a lot of angles to this stuff, after all. What would Kerry and the Democrats gain from showing that American elections are a fraud? Don&#39;t forget that the reason that we have elections is to preserve the appearance of "democracy"...even though, for example, the vast majority of congressional districts are as "one-party dominated" as anything in the old USSR."


6>Communists were the real victims of the holocaust.

See the ongoing debate here.


7>Despite the fact that the womens&#39; rights movement has made the most strides under a capitalist system, capitalist systems are the worst at oppressing them.

VMT says, (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=33252&hl=beat+their+wives) "A society based on violence and coercive heirarchies, internalized, drives all sorts of fucked up behavior. Throw in a bit of Christianity to ensure some sexual repression, and a social agenda that sets up the ideal of the violent white male . . . well, what do you expect?"

Plus lots of other nonsensical responses of similar nature in the same thread.


8>Not being allowed to do drugs is evidence of fascist oppression.

The drug war (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=33334&hl=oppressed) is about the only evidence provided that any individual who posts on this board has ever been oppressed.


9>No person has ever escaped poverty in a capitalist system; class is static and rigid and enforced by violence. Except that those who have succeeded were lucky.

VTM&#39;s and NovelGentry&#39;s responses in this thread (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=33275&hl=fluid)


10>Freedom of speech is severely lacking in the United States, and it would be so much better in a communist system where opposing voices&#39; only option would be to leave (or perhaps suffer the violence advocated in #2)

RedStar&#39;s reponse, (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=33024&hl=commune) "Communism: if you had serious disagreements with the policies of your collective, it would probably be just easier to leave it and find another. There&#39;s very little in the way of "general policies" that "apply everywhere"."


11>Personal dislike of SUVs is reason enough for them to be banned.

RedStar again (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=33024&hl=commune&st=40)


12>The elderly and disabled are shit-out-of-luck if they want to visit the wilderness.

Same thread, I complained that banning SUVs would mean the elderly would not get to visit the wilderness, the response was "Don&#39;t blame socialism or communism; blame fucking old age. It sucks&#33;"


13>It&#39;s fine that so many different kinds of soap are produced, but it&#39;s absolutely wrong that there are so many labels on the soap.

Same thread.


14>Individuals&#39; personal taste should not be a factor in determining what to produce.

Same thread.


15>People are perfectly free under capitalism to live a life that rejects materialism, but we still need a system that requires it.

ibid


16>It would be efficient for the government to select the price of each and every single product

ibid


17>It would be efficient for democratic votes to determine how much product is produced.

ibid again.


18>The only people who flee Cuba are criminals

This thread (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=32938&hl=). It&#39;s a generalization, not one of my better moments.


19>The fact that so many people risk life and limb to come to the United States, while few if any do the same to leave, provides no evidence whatsoever of the capitalist system&#39;s superiority.

Same thread: October Revolution says, "I don&#39;t know where you&#39;ve got this from but to my knowledge Cubans are not "flocking" to the US. Some may leave yes and yes there are alot of Cuban immigrants in Miami but they may have left due to deportation or because they wish to follow the american dream because they do not know that it is unacheivable. It doesn&#39;t say anything about the system because alot of Cubans stay in their own country because the life they live they is good, atleast in contention with other 3rd world countries."



20>Killing 20 million people in the course of centralized reorganization of agriculture is glorious, but a few violent anarchists getting their heads cracked in for pointlessly trying to tear down a fence is state brutality.

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...3059&hl=million (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=33059&hl=million)


21>Those thousands of protesters who lined the inaugural route, waving signs and heckling the administration, had their rights to free speech denied.


Yo. (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=32619&hl=inaugural)

[Guest1]

Except without exceptions, those governments have never claimed to be operating under communism, and always said they were "on the socialist road to communism".

[Capitalist Lawyer]

The Soviet Union gave the women the right to vote (and many other things) long before the U.S or Britain.

Is that suppose to be a defense of communism and proof of communism&#39;s superiority? I thought the USSR wasn&#39;t commmunist?

[t_wolves_fan]

Oops.

[Guest1]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 23 2005, 12:54 PM

The Soviet Union gave the women the right to vote (and many other things) long before the U.S or Britain.

Is that suppose to be a defense of communism and proof of communism&#39;s superiority? I thought the USSR wasn&#39;t commmunist?
While the USSR wasn&#39;t communist, it was a communist workers&#39; movement that implemented the revolution.

Many of those rights the movement won were removed when stalin came to power.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Che y Marijuana+Mar 24 2005, 10:39 AM--> (Che y Marijuana @ Mar 24 2005, 10:39 AM)
Capitalist [email protected] 23 2005, 12:54 PM

The Soviet Union gave the women the right to vote (and many other things) long before the U.S or Britain.

Is that suppose to be a defense of communism and proof of communism&#39;s superiority? I thought the USSR wasn&#39;t commmunist?
While the USSR wasn&#39;t communist, it was a communist workers&#39; movement that implemented the revolution.

Many of those rights the movement won were removed when stalin came to power. [/b]
So the revolution failed?

[1936]

A couple of replies to your origanal list

1) Oppression cant be seen?...so the police beating innocent civilians...cant be seen?....u&#036; invading countries for oil and slaughtering the civilians...cannot be seen? kids working for nike 20 hours a day and geting less in a month then i would in an hour...cannot be seen?

2) Violence to non belivers i dont belive has ever been justified on this site, but the facist scum that are violent towards the society.....yes

3) Who the hell said just because hitelr was a facist, bush is? George Bush has no power in parliment, hes just a puppet on a string. Being used by facists that tell him to dance for hes master.

4) I dont understand the relavence of your 4th question

5) Or your 5th question

6) The jewish population sufferd in numbers in the halocaust, but the communists of the world are still victim to sever discrimination.

7) Name one modern day system in power that is oppressing womens rights, that DOSENT practice a form of capatilsm

8) If you grew from the earth some orange trees, and i came with a batton saying your not allowed to eat those oranges or your gonna get beaten upside the head, am i not oppressing your rights to eat from the ground what you have harvested?

9) People have escaped poverty in capatilsm, but for one to go up 10 must go down

10) If i ran around screaming "george bush is a retard&#33; FREE IRAQ&#33; the u&#036; killed thousands of innocent american civilians in order to provoke war in cuba, the fbi are out to get you&#33; there out to get us all&#33;"...would my right of speech be taken away? yes....just because it opposes those of power

now im bored because your list is just lots more of juvinial bullshit...that i cant be arsed to waste time answerin

[1936]

Oh and this sums up the insulence of your arguments



I&#39;m adding a new one:

22>The actions of an individual acting in a system define that system

Courtesy of Non-Sectarian Bastard&#33;


Did you not just start a thread in this very forum called "commiespit"?

generallising us all by one guy spitting on a camera?

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 02:24 PM



1) Oppression cant be seen?...so the police beating innocent civilians...cant be seen?....

Is it official policy to beat civilians?


u&#036; invading countries for oil and slaughtering the civilians...cannot be seen?

Do we slaughter civilians on purpose?


kids working for nike 20 hours a day and geting less in a month then i would in an hour...cannot be seen?

Would those kids get as much money had the Nike factory not provided them the job or would they be out in the rice paddies working as subsistence farmers?


2) Violence to non belivers i dont belive has ever been justified on this site,

Look around.


3) Who the hell said just because hitelr was a facist, bush is?

Look around.


George Bush has no power in parliment, hes just a puppet on a string. Being used by facists that tell him to dance for hes master.

If Bush has no power in CONGRESS then neither do his puppet masters. If his puppet masters have no power in CONGRESS then they are not fascists because fascism means total central control.



4) I dont understand the relavence of your 4th question

5) Or your 5th question

That&#39;s not surprising.


6) The jewish population sufferd in numbers in the halocaust, but the communists of the world are still victim to sever discrimination.

Just because the vast majority of the world&#39;s population doesn&#39;t buy your bullshit arguments doesn&#39;t mean you&#39;re discriminated against.


7) Name one modern day system in power that is oppressing womens rights, that DOSENT practice a form of capatilsm

The United States practices capitalism but does not oppress womens&#39; rights.


8) If you grew from the earth some orange trees, and i came with a batton saying your not allowed to eat those oranges or your gonna get beaten upside the head, am i not oppressing your rights to eat from the ground what you have harvested?

Yes. What in the FUCK does that have to do with drug laws?


9) People have escaped poverty in capatilsm, but for one to go up 10 must go down

Nope, not really.


10) If i ran around screaming "george bush is a retard&#33; FREE IRAQ&#33; the u&#036; killed thousands of innocent american civilians in order to provoke war in cuba, the fbi are out to get you&#33; there out to get us all&#33;"...would my right of speech be taken away? yes....just because it opposes those of power

Ummmm...what? Because you ran around opposing those in power, your rights have been taken away?

On what planet does that statement make any sense?


now im bored because your list is just lots more of juvinial bullshit...that i cant be arsed to waste time answerin

Then why did you waste time in the first place?

[1936]

1) ok im sorry, so if its my offical policy to not kill kids, killing kids is ok?

2) so you accidently kill civilians? your ak47s ACCIDENTLY go of in someones face?

3) this one is incredible...so you belive because they could be geting less, nike are not a evil corporation, BECAUSE IT COULD BE WORSE&#33; the jews could have been completly wiped out by a mass-soddamising, so hitler was alright&#33;...moron

4 and 5) well how are they relavent?

6) mcarthey witch trials....

7) read what i said before you replie in future please

8) So you can grow and consume oranges...but you cant grow and smoke cannabis?...who has the authority to say whats ok and not for me to harvest and spend time and effort growing and consume it?

9) Well if you go from being a beggar, to being a millionare, that money has come from someones pocket, they dont just make money for people, theres a balance in wich value can be shared between the human race equally in recources, if you go from havin 1 sheep to 3,000,000. Someone has jst lost a hell of a lot of sheep...and please dont say he can make money without it being lost by anyone else, because then the value of money will decrease as of the fact that there is more of that currency, and someons losing out still

10) I meant, i have the right to free speech untill my speech upsets the people in power, thats no right atall&#33; you can have free speech, aslong as you say what we want. Thats bullshit.

And when i started i belived this thread to have a point, but your origanal statements are just retarded

[t_wolves_fan]

You&#39;re definitely the most entertaining nutjob of the day.


1) ok im sorry, so if its my offical policy to not kill kids, killing kids is ok?

No, killing kids is not ok. That is why police officers who kill kids without cause are generally prosecuted.

Moron, the distinction is that in a fascist state, police have unlimited power to kill dissidents. A police officer kills a protester, it&#39;s because he was taught to do so and did so purposely. In the U.S. a police officer kills a protester with a tazer, it&#39;s accidental and killing was not the officer&#39;s goal or purpose. Unlike in a fascist dictatorship, the officer is investigated and if it&#39;s determined he acted wrongly, he&#39;s prosecuted. In a fascist dictatorship, he&#39;s not investigated and is actually rewarded.

I know these subtle but obvious distinctions are hard to think of when you&#39;re practicing your slogans, but putting the thought into them is generally worth it so that you are not going around the web making an ass out of yourself.


2) so you accidently kill civilians? your ak47s ACCIDENTLY go of in someones face?

Maybe it does. Maybe the soldier wrongly perceives the civilian as a threat. Maybe the missle misses its target. Maybe the intelligence on whether that house is a hideout is wrong. These things DO happen, you realize?

You&#39;re suggesting American soldiers go shoot civilians for fun. You seem to think the air force looks at a building, decides "Hell, doesn&#39;t matter if it&#39;s a hideout or not, the explosion would look cool so let&#39;s blow the fucker up." Let me assure you that is NOT the case.

Do you get the distinction? Or would that get in the way or your simplistic sloganeering?


3) this one is incredible...so you belive because they could be geting less, nike are not a evil corporation, BECAUSE IT COULD BE WORSE&#33; the jews could have been completly wiped out by a mass-soddamising, so hitler was alright&#33;...moron

Oh. My. God. I dearly hope to God that no high school has seen fit to allow you to graduate with such poor critical thinking skills.

Let&#39;s see...a corporation moves into an underdeveloped area and offers a job to a bunch of rice farmers who, depending on the season are generally on the brink of starvation. They take the job because, even though they are working under conditions you&#39;d consider to be hell, they are actually better off in their judgement.

Because you wouldn&#39;t take the job, you&#39;re equating their situation to jews being slaughtered by Hitler?

Dude I&#39;m all for decriminalizing drugs but seriously, lay off the fucking weed.


8) So you can grow and consume oranges...but you cant grow and smoke cannabis?...who has the authority to say whats ok and not for me to harvest and spend time and effort growing and consume it?

Ahh&#33; I see. I actually agree with you here. But I can&#39;t bring myself to equate moronic drug laws with fascism.


9) Well if you go from being a beggar, to being a millionare, that money has come from someones pocket, they dont just make money for people, theres a balance in wich value can be shared between the human race equally in recources, if you go from havin 1 sheep to 3,000,000. Someone has jst lost a hell of a lot of sheep...and please dont say he can make money without it being lost by anyone else, because then the value of money will decrease as of the fact that there is more of that currency, and someons losing out still

Among your many deficiencies is your lack of understanding about basic economics. Wealth is not fixed - it is created and destroyed. It is not a zero-sum game (assuming you know what that means).

Let&#39;s take your sheep example. Please get our your crayons, construction paper, and child-safety scissors and attempt to follow along:

A>I have 1 sheep. I think I can make money by expanding wool production, so I need more sheep.

B>If I don&#39;t have the money to buy the sheep, I get people to voluntarily lend me money to purchase more sheep.

C>I use the money, known as capital, to purchase sheep from people willing to sell their sheep. Now, if I am forcibly taking sheep from other people, this is not capitalism. Under capitalism the only way I get sheep is if people are willing to sell them to me. If there is some policy forcing people to give me sheep, then that is a political perversion of capitalism and I will gladly join you in protesting against that.

D>People who have the sheep I want to buy consider their options. Perhaps by selling me the sheep they can retire, or buy some cows to diversify their production, or buy the new barn they need to keep their business going.

E>I offer them &#036;200 bucks for each sheep. They decide each sheep is worth &#036;300 to them. We negotiate.

F>I end up paying farmer Bill &#036;250 each for 1.5 million sheep. Farmer Bill takes his &#036;375 million and keeps it (and is now richer by the difference of the &#036;375 million minus the value of the sheep) or invests it. Farmer Joe wanted out of the sheep business so he sold me the other 1.5 million sheep for &#036;100 a pop. He is happy and retires with his &#036;150 million.

G>With 3 million sheep to attend to instead of 1, I&#39;m going to need to hire some people to sheer them, feed them, and shovel their shit.

F>I find a community that has a large population of relatively unskilled workers who seem interested in working on my farm. It&#39;s either that or continue their subsistence rice farming.

G>I determine that I&#39;ll get about &#036;100 from each sheep per month in revenue, so I offer the workers in the community &#036;80 a month to work on my sheep farm.

H>The workers decide &#036;80 a month is worth more to them than subsistence rice farming and, hell, they can do both, so they take the jobs. They are now &#036;80 a month better off, and I am &#036;20 a month per sheep better off.

I>Morons like you who have never met my workers, nor never talked to me, don&#39;t understand economics and who live in a society where &#036;80 a month is not enough to live on, but who ignore the fact that &#036;80 a month in my workers&#39; society is a decent wage, protest that I&#39;m oppressing the workers because there&#39;s no way you&#39;d work for &#036;80 a month.

J>You feel happy that you&#39;ve done something for people you&#39;ve never met and whose life you&#39;ll never understand, so you go home and practice your bongo drums while smoking a phat J.


10) I meant, i have the right to free speech untill my speech upsets the people in power, thats no right atall&#33; you can have free speech, aslong as you say what we want. Thats bullshit.

Again: Oh. My. Fucking. God.

A society that protects free speech, such as the United States, allows people to speak even when it upsets people in power.

Did you witness the inaugural at all, or the frequent anti-war protests here in Washington? Did Mr. Bush get angry with those protesters and order the police to kill or arrest them all? I was there, and I&#39;m pretty sure that didn&#39;t happen. I&#39;m pretty sure the only protesters who were arrested, tear-gassed or beaten up were those who got out of hand and started attacking police or destroying property.

Freedom of speech does not mean anyone has to listen to you. A lunatic who stands on a street corner and yells at clouds all day while being totally ignored is practicing his right to free speech.

Do you get that? Are you under the impression that in order for "free speech" to exist, your views need to be taken seriously and/or adopted by those in power? Because if you are, you are wrong. You are wrong because it&#39;s impossible to grant that right to everyone. Do you understand why?

Get the construction paper and crayons out again, because I&#39;m going to walk you through this:

A>You have the right to "free speech" to advocate for communism and free abortions for all.

B>Bible-thumpers have the right to "free speech" to advocate for a religious theocracy and a total ban on abortion.

C>If "Free speech" meant you both had to have your views accepted and adopted, what policy could we possibly adopt that would satisfy you both?

Get it?

[1936]

There firstly seems to be an odd gap between 3 and 8.....

secondly by over-reacting like a popper sniffing benderido, your arguments are no more right then your economic stance.

now ill start on your ridiculas statements.

1) In comeseration to you, ill borrow your argument skills

OH MY FUCKIN GOD&#33; I MEAN WOW&#33; REALLY&#33; IM GOING TO LIKE WALK AWAY FROM THE COMPUTER AND COME BACK CAUSE THATS WHACK&#33;

you said it wasnt official policy to beat civilians, it was the policy theory in wich i was critising, dont diverse....and in effect avoid answering



2) Tell mr and mrs wong from mai lai that?



3)OOOOOOOOH MY ALLAHS BLUE PANTIES&#33;&#33;&#33;....now you see how thats annoying?

Once again you diverced from the obvious point of my comment. You said that because without nike theyd hav a quality of life lesser then with nike, nike are allowed to take the quality of life they offer right down to just above the origanal quality of life there offerd.


9) The references to my mental age are very cute....yet AGAIN diversery tactics used by morons who cant answer the origanl statement efficently.

Even if your means of geting rich are ok, someone in the "sheep" business is losing out, and the people working for him are losing out. By this the quality of living has been severley effected for numerous peoples, by your "innocent" climb to societys hierochy

10) Seeings as my last refernce to the mcarthey with trials shut you up, ill give it another shot&#33; I say im a communist and then....

[t_wolves_fan]

There firstly seems to be an odd gap between 3 and 8.....

That&#39;s because the discussion on those topics dwindled a bit, and you managed to spell at least one word wrong in each one.


secondly by over-reacting like a popper sniffing benderido, your arguments are no more right then your economic stance.

I didn&#39;t over-react, I tried to walk you through the basic arguments which you don&#39;t understand.


now ill start on your ridiculas statements.

Im gona start mispeling werds like you so you kan seee how intellijent you looke.


1) In comeseration to you, ill borrow your argument skills

ok that sownds reely good to me.



you said it wasnt official policy to beat civilians, it was the policy theory in wich i was critising, dont diverse....and in effect avoid answering

but kapitalst politikal theery dusnt kall for beeting or kiling siviliens eether.


2) Tell mr and mrs wong from mai lai that?

ok i will cuz i bet theyd rather hav sadam bak in powerr, cuz at leest then they knew theyd die soonr or latr.




3)OOOOOOOOH MY ALLAHS BLUE PANTIES&#33;&#33;&#33;....now you see how thats annoying?

Once again you diverced from the obvious point of my comment. You said that because without nike theyd hav a quality of life lesser then with nike, nike are allowed to take the quality of life they offer right down to just above the origanal quality of life there offerd.

um yes i think thats klose to whut i sed, do yu think itd be bettr if they just stuk to subsistense farming and had no oppertoonity to werk for nikey?



9) The references to my mental age are very cute....yet AGAIN diversery tactics used by morons who cant answer the origanl statement efficently.

lol thats funny I tryd to be therough not efficent.


Even if your means of geting rich are ok, someone in the "sheep" business is losing out, and the people working for him are losing out. By this the quality of living has been severley effected for numerous peoples, by your "innocent" climb to societys hierochy

not nesessarily is sumwun else losing out kompletely, maybe a kompetiter hass to charje less for hiz wool but in thu ehnd the consoomer winz by having choyces and lowr prises, dont yew thinc?


10) Seeings as my last refernce to the mcarthey with trials shut you up, ill give it another shot&#33; I say im a communist and then....

I gott &#036;5 frum washing dishes lahst nyght that sayz yu dont evn knoe who mccarthy (spelled rite&#33;) waz, but it begz the kwestchun what happend to presiden...er congress...er whoevr he waz mccarthy as a rezult of hiz overzellusness? Iz that stil oure polisee toda?

[1936]

Before i start on the other questions, can i just ask.

How long was saddam hussein president of Vietnam? Because to the best of my recolection it was between....well never.

So saddams return to power over the people of mai lai....would probally just confuse mr and mrs wong more then anything. But i see they taught you effectively in your capatilst school of the imperealism of your country.

[1936]

And in the question of my apparently dubable intellegence, i may be severly dislexic, wich i am used to being labelled as less intellegent because of what is effectively a handicap&#33; and its still good to know that capatilsm finds it fun to discriminate disabilites&#33;

But as to my intellegence, i have upheld debates with you in many posts, and to of which in everyone you havent managed to not look a prat&#33;

[RedAnarchist]

I wouldnt worry about him and his views, CptAnarchy.

After all, i&#39;m sure theres plenty of oil in Saigon&#33; :lol:

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 07:31 PM
Before i start on the other questions, can i just ask.

How long was saddam hussein president of Vietnam? Because to the best of my recolection it was between....well never.

So saddams return to power over the people of mai lai....would probally just confuse mr and mrs wong more then anything. But i see they taught you effectively in your capatilst school of the imperealism of your country.
Yeah, I bet they would be surprised to have Saddam come to power.

I doubt their lives would change much though, except they&#39;d probably just die younger.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 07:40 PM
And in the question of my apparently dubable intellegence, i may be severly dislexic, wich i am used to being labelled as less intellegent because of what is effectively a handicap&#33; and its still good to know that capatilsm finds it fun to discriminate disabilites&#33;

But as to my intellegence, i have upheld debates with you in many posts, and to of which in everyone you havent managed to not look a prat&#33;
I&#39;m sorry for your disability and I&#39;m sorry for making fun of it.

You really haven&#39;t held you own in any of these debates though, you&#39;ve simply repeated slogans.

[1936]

No worries.

What repeated slogans would these be?

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by The World&#39;s 1st [email protected] 28 2005, 07:28 PM
No worries.

What repeated slogans would these be?
Read your posts, all they are is slogans.

"The U.S. invaded Iraq for oil"

"The U.S. slaughters Iraqi civlians"

"Capitalism oppresses women"

"We have no freedom of speech"

"Bush is a fascist puppet"


*YAWN*

Your freedom of speech argument is really perplexing. I&#39;m still trying to figure what you mean and how you could possibly mean it.

How old are you, by the way?

[Andy Bowden]

Out of interest, why do you think the US/UK invaded Iraq?

[Guest1]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 09:46 AM
So the revolution failed?
Of course, or else we wouldn&#39;t be having this conversation.

Just as the liberal revolution in france ended with a bureacuratic elite in Napoleon&#39;s empire setting the revolution back, but still retaining a few of its gains, so too did the revolution in russia end in Stalin and his bureaucracy.

But Capitalists didn&#39;t give up after France, and they weren&#39;t any more defeated than communists are today. Things take time. There&#39;s always plenty of failures before success.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Andy [email protected] 29 2005, 03:39 PM
Out of interest, why do you think the US/UK invaded Iraq?
To bring stability and democracy to one of the world&#39;s most important (oil) regions.

I know you&#39;re going to scoff at the stability point, but think long-term.

Oil is a consideration, but hardly the most important factor. My support for the war has vacillated. On the one hand, Saddam did not live up to the deal he negotiated as part of a ceasefire. On the other, after reading Richard Clarke&#39;s book and Imperial Hubris, it might not have been worth it. But now, recent developments in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Lebanon indicate maybe it is working after all.

The bottom line is that we&#39;ve done it, so now we must be successful.

[Andy Bowden]

I think the recent developments in Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Egypt show that the Arab people have the ability to fight for freedom and democracy without the "need" for US/UK soldiers to come in and show them "how it&#39;s done".

On the issue of Lebanon however is more complicated than the western media has portrayed it. Hizbullah, the Shia religious group has been organising many pro-
Syria demonstrations, with turnouts of a similar size to those opposed to Syria.

On the issue of democracy, there is the case of Venezuela - when President Hugo Chavez in Venezuela began a process of wealth redistribution and nationalisation the white house helped those plotting a coup to overthrow him. If people are going to support democracy then it should not just be when it doesn&#39;t go your way.

There is also the issue of the large numbers of people in the Bush govt who were quite happy to deal with Saddam when he was committing atrocities - Donald Rumsfeld being the classic example.

PS Who is your Avatar? It looks a little bit like Christian Bale from American Psycho but I&#39;m not sure :unsure: ......

[t_wolves_fan]

I think the recent developments in Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Egypt show that the Arab people have the ability to fight for freedom and democracy without the "need" for US/UK soldiers to come in and show them "how it&#39;s done".

Yet they&#39;ve never even attemped it on the scale we see today. I&#39;m sure you&#39;d disagree but I think it&#39;s possible our action in Iraq is partially responsible for that.


On the issue of Lebanon however is more complicated than the western media has portrayed it. Hizbullah, the Shia religious group has been organising many pro-
Syria demonstrations, with turnouts of a similar size to those opposed to Syria.

I don&#39;t doubt that, but we are still seeing action partially thanks to Bush&#39;s pressure on Syria.


On the issue of democracy, there is the case of Venezuela - when President Hugo Chavez in Venezuela began a process of wealth redistribution and nationalisation the white house helped those plotting a coup to overthrow him. If people are going to support democracy then it should not just be when it doesn&#39;t go your way.

I didn&#39;t say we&#39;re perfect.


There is also the issue of the large numbers of people in the Bush govt who were quite happy to deal with Saddam when he was committing atrocities - Donald Rumsfeld being the classic example.

It was in our interest to support him during the Cold War. And again, we&#39;re not perfect.

I never really understood the argument "You used to support Saddam so you have no right to take him out". It sounds to me like you&#39;d be opposed to my cleaning up a glass of milk I spillt since I&#39;m the one who made the mistake. Ya dig?


PS Who is your Avatar? It looks a little bit like Christian Bale from American Psycho but I&#39;m not sure :unsure: ......

He is Bill Lumberg from the movie Office Space. He is (http://www.phydiux.com/bill_lumbergh_soundboard.cfm) an incompetent and moronic middle manager of a software firm. Ironically, he represents pretty much everything wrong with capitalism.

[colombiano]

Maybe it does. Maybe the soldier wrongly perceives the civilian as a threat. Maybe the missle misses its target. Maybe the intelligence on whether that house is a hideout is wrong. These things DO happen, you realize?

You&#39;re suggesting American soldiers go shoot civilians for fun. You seem to think the air force looks at a building, decides "Hell, doesn&#39;t matter if it&#39;s a hideout or not, the explosion would look cool so let&#39;s blow the fucker up." Let me assure you that is NOT the case.

Do you get the distinction? Or would that get in the way or your simplistic sloganeering?

In regards to America&#39;s Atrocities it is not a simple as one would like to think. You really need to take a refresher history class. One word would best decribes it I believe is.
Coercion



To bring stability and democracy to one of the world&#39;s most important (oil) regions. :lol:



The US does support a certain kind of democracy. The kind of democracy it supports was described rather frankly by a leading scholar who dealt with the democratic initiatives of the Reagan administration in the 1980s and who writes from an insider&#39;s point of view because he was in the State Department working on "democracy enhancement" projects: Thomas Carothers. He points out that though the Reagan administration, which he thinks was very sincere, undermined democracy everywhere, it nevertheless was interested in a certain kind of democracy-what he calls "top-down" forms of democracy that leave "traditional structures of power" in place, namely those with which the US has long had good relations and appeal to US interests. That form, it&#39;s no problem.
GREAT form of democracy the US advocates. :rolleyes:

[colombiano]

Interesting Iraq Site SOURCE (http://www.occupationwatch.org/)

I particularly like the link on the right side. Conduct of Occupation Forces

[1936]

Im 15......

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 03:53 PM


In regards to America&#39;s Atrocities it is not a simple as one would like to think. You really need to take a refresher history class. One word would best decribes it I believe is.
Coercion



I was an International Relations major in college. I&#39;m well aware of our previous foreign policy faults and their results.

If we weren&#39;t perfect in the past we just shouldn&#39;t try today, should we Colombiano? &#39;Zat your point?

[Andy Bowden]

Bill Lumberg? Can&#39;t say I&#39;ve heard of him......

Have any of you Yanks seen the office though? Probably one of the Best recent British comedies - the highlight is incompetent boss David Brent who&#39;se pearls of wisdom include,

"If you want the rainbow, you have to put up with the rain. Which "great" philosopher said that? Dolly Parton. And people say shes just a big pair of tits."

:D :D :D :D :D :D

[colombiano]

If we weren&#39;t perfect in the past we just shouldn&#39;t try today, should we Colombiano? &#39;Zat your point?
Don&#39;t reply to me in that way you egocentric ass. I have been polite to you throughtout ALL debates and never attcked you personally.
MY Point is HISTORY proves the measures and means the US has taken in it&#39;s own self interest and it appears nothing has really changed, those same attitudes and policies are in place today.


we just shouldn&#39;t try today The US has NOT changed a thing same old drum beat just a different drummer.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Andy [email protected] 30 2005, 04:15 PM
Bill Lumberg? Can&#39;t say I&#39;ve heard of him......

Have any of you Yanks seen the office though? Probably one of the Best recent British comedies - the highlight is incompetent boss David Brent who&#39;se pearls of wisdom include,

"If you want the rainbow, you have to put up with the rain. Which "great" philosopher said that? Dolly Parton. And people say shes just a big pair of tits."

:D :D :D :D :D :D
The Office is now on NBC here. I&#39;ve seen it once. Last night I had the chance to watch South Park instead, so I took it. It does seem pretty funny.

You gotta go out and rent Office Space sometime.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 04:16 PM

If we weren&#39;t perfect in the past we just shouldn&#39;t try today, should we Colombiano? &#39;Zat your point?
Don&#39;t reply to me in that way you egocentric ass. I have been polite to you throughtout ALL debates and never attcked you personally.
MY Point is HISTORY proves the measures and means the US has taken in it&#39;s own self interest and it appears nothing has really changed, those same attitudes and policies are in place today.


we just shouldn&#39;t try today The US has NOT changed a thing same old drum beat just a different drummer.
I didn&#39;t attack you personally either, I just asked a pointed question.

Sure, what we are doing is in our own self-interest. Every other state that does anything else internationally does so in its own self-interest as well.

Don&#39;t you think that on some tiny level what we&#39;re doing in Iraq now is better than what we did in the past?

[Wiesty]

20>Killing 20 million people in the course of centralized reorganization of agriculture is glorious, but a few violent anarchists getting their heads cracked in for pointlessly trying to tear down a fence is state brutality

we agree on something

[1936]

those 20 million (yet another ridiculas figure), die for the people.

This revolution isnt a man slaughtering machine, its man saving.

Cops battering people, isnt for the people.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by The World&#39;s 1st [email protected] 31 2005, 11:33 AM
those 20 million (yet another ridiculas figure), die for the people.

This revolution isnt a man slaughtering machine, its man saving.

Cops battering people, isnt for the people.
:o

I&#39;m sure those 20 million really loved dying "for the people".

You&#39;re 15, so while you certainly have a right to your opinion, you have to realize that right now you really don&#39;t know jack shit about anything. You think you do, and you think you know how to change the world, and you&#39;re all fired up to stick it to the "authority" just like all the other young hotheads here; but the reality is you&#39;re still a child, you don&#39;t know much about history, you don&#39;t know how stupid, lazy, selfish, and impractical most people can be, and you have no clue how complicated everything really is.

Please just try to imagine having a child of your own that is starving to death. Think, realistically, how happy you&#39;d be that he/she was dying of starvation "for the people".

Now go crank up the "Rage" and rock out.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by The World&#39;s 1st [email protected] 31 2005, 11:33 AM
for the people.
...The magic phrase that makes anything justifiable.

[colombiano]

The magic phrase that makes anything justifiable
Just like invading Iraq? ;)

[1936]

Although im sure this 400 pound american is the fountain of ALL knowledge that no one should question him&#33; im gonna give it a stab.



Now ill try to not make my youthel innocence apparent, and fring abwout the reaaaaly fritty frowers.

So oh wise one of age and beauty, my grasp and perception upon reality and waht i deem possible, and neccessery is not to be respected because of my failure to....be older?

Well it was you that said 20 million, i went with it for the case of not diversing into a debate upon how many people will fall fataly victim to a revolution, it is YOUR belief 20 million would die (although it was a billioin the last thread).

And ofcourse only the tragic stories of....Americans can understand the worlds virtues and problems....all that suffering you must have gone through t_wolves_fan.

And im just 15......so i couldnt understand so i wont try, tell you what sir, ill leave you my number and when YOU CONCIEVE IT that im suitable to begin learning under such greats as you, ill be drawing puppys and eating paste in the nursery.

[NovelGentry]

Please just try to imagine having a child of your own that is starving to death. Think, realistically, how happy you&#39;d be that he/she was dying of starvation "for the people".

Rather for the people on a grander scale than for the sake of every fat cat member of the bourgeoisie.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2005, 10:25 PM

The magic phrase that makes anything justifiable
Just like invading Iraq? ;)
Touche.

The difference is, in Iraq we go out of our way to avoid killing civilians.

Rice would take no such caution, it seems.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by The World&#39;s 1st [email protected] 31 2005, 10:33 PM
Although im sure this 400 pound american is the fountain of ALL knowledge that no one should question him&#33; im gonna give it a stab.



Now ill try to not make my youthel innocence apparent, and fring abwout the reaaaaly fritty frowers.

So oh wise one of age and beauty, my grasp and perception upon reality and waht i deem possible, and neccessery is not to be respected because of my failure to....be older?

Well it was you that said 20 million, i went with it for the case of not diversing into a debate upon how many people will fall fataly victim to a revolution, it is YOUR belief 20 million would die (although it was a billioin the last thread).

And ofcourse only the tragic stories of....Americans can understand the worlds virtues and problems....all that suffering you must have gone through t_wolves_fan.

And im just 15......so i couldnt understand so i wont try, tell you what sir, ill leave you my number and when YOU CONCIEVE IT that im suitable to begin learning under such greats as you, ill be drawing puppys and eating paste in the nursery.
I really didn&#39;t mean to insult you, I was merely pointing out what you must know: Your youth means you don&#39;t have much experience with the real world, nor much education.

I was fairly left-wing when I graduated from college, so maybe you&#39;ll learn before even I did.

:P

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2005, 10:53 PM
Rather for the people on a grander scale than for the sake of every fat cat member of the bourgeoisie.
On what virtue ?

[NovelGentry]

On what virtue ?

You&#39;d think it better to be OK with someone starving because we&#39;re all starving than for someone starving so some bourgeois fucker can make millions a year?

On the virtue you apparently lack.