If Bush Showed Up On This Forum... [Archive]

Anti-Red

13th July 2006, 05:46

I do not like Bush, and I doubt many of you do, and believe it or not we probably have that in common. Why we don't like him is two different things as far as economics is concerned, but on some things we may have the same reasons. Anyway, I am just wondering if George Bush were to create an account on this forum in OI and you KNEW it was him, what would you say? This is mine...

Mr. President, why are you such a jackass?

Publius

13th July 2006, 05:48

Ahomosezwhat?

That would create a better situation.

red team

13th July 2006, 05:49

If Bush showed up on this forum he'll probably bring along homeland security to monitor every one of us.

which doctor

13th July 2006, 05:49

He would probaly be banned.

Fascism. Racism. Homophobia.

Anti-Red

13th July 2006, 05:55

Originally posted by Fist of [email protected] 13 2006, 02:50 AM
He would probaly be banned.

Fascism. Racism. Homophobia.
As much as do not like Bush, I do not think he is any of these things. He is a dictator yes, but fascism no. Fascism would have a different economic structure. Fascism is not about helping big business either, and Bush's policy is "anything for big business" which is NOT true capitalism, when government actively works for big business. I do not think he is racist. This is a stupid claim I hear, but why would he appoint a black Secretary of State, two of them, and a Hispanic Attorney General, as well as others, if he was racist? If you mean Iraq, well, he does not do what he does, even as bad as it is, because they have brown skin. The same would go for any white country that he thinks needs invading, and since most white countries are not in Iraq's situation to begin with, and either in Europe, our own continent, or Australia, it ain't gonna happen. As for homophobic, while I disagree with his view of gay marriage, just being against gay marriage does not mean you hate gay people. In fact, Bush appointed the first gay ambassador. Bush does not really care about gays as I see it, he just pretends to be this Christian moral conservative to appeal to the base, doi. Now I think some of his supporters like Jerry Falwell are homophobes, I do not think he is. He is a terrible leader, but none of those three things.

Pawn Power

13th July 2006, 06:20

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 09:49 PM
Ahomosezwhat?

That would create a better situation.
Homophobic "jokes" are not funny and are not welcomed here.
Using "homo" as an insult plainly shows discrimination towards homosexuals.

Publius

13th July 2006, 06:43

Homophobic "jokes" are not funny

How is the joke homophobic?

How can you tell me it isn't funny?

Using "homo" as an insult plainly shows discrimination towards homosexuals.

How did I use it as an insult? Who was I insulting?

If you'd give it a second's thought you'd realize that my joke was entirely meant to satirize Bush's opinion on homosexuality; that he is a bigot, even though I am not.

By making him say this statement 'what', it would imply that we was indeed a homosexual, which would be humorous in light of his position on homosexuality.

It says nothing about my take on homosexuality, or any moral or ethical quality associated with it, it's merely humorous in light of Bush's position on the issue.

There is nothing offensive about the joke.

But it's not surprising that you can't figure this out.

Dean

13th July 2006, 06:57

Fascism is said to be the combinaton of the corporate and state apparatuses. Clearly, instead of destroying the corporate structure with state power Bush seeks to strenghten and therefore combine the two. I see that as fascism.

Racist? Maybe. He has made sure to keep one or two black people around as tokens, which is racist, but personally he could just not care. He has created a climate of race warfare between whites and arabs, though.

Homophobia? I doubt it. He has not really seemed to back up homophobic causes except for marriage, which I think he conceded was a state's right to judge. Could be political, but again that he backed amendments against gay rights is still evidence. Republicans aren't expected to support Gay marriage.

In practice, he seems to be all of these, but personally he could be much more liberal than he acts.

theraven

13th July 2006, 07:22

Fascism is said to be the combinaton of the corporate and state apparatuses. Clearly, instead of destroying the corporate structure with state power Bush seeks to strenghten and therefore combine the two. I see that as fascism.

facism is much mroe invovled then encouraging buisness. thats one aspect, but not the sole aspect.

Racist? Maybe. He has made sure to keep one or two black people around as tokens, which is racist, but personally he could just not care. He has created a climate of race warfare between whites and arabs, though.

secretary of state, attorny general and national securtiy advisor. boy those sound like token positiosn to me :lol:

LSD

13th July 2006, 07:36

Anyway, I am just wondering if George Bush were to create an account on this forum in OI and you KNEW it was him, what would you say?

Banned George Bush -- racism, sexism, homophobia, imperialism, preaching, trolling, and generally being an incomprehensible dolt.

Janus

13th July 2006, 09:41

As much as do not like Bush, I do not think he is any of these things. He is a dictator yes, but fascism no.
You're right, the US isn't a fascist state...yet.

Banned George Bush -- racism, sexism, homophobia, imperialism, preaching, trolling, and generally being an incomprehensible dolt.
:lol: Nice.

Dean

13th July 2006, 20:15

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 04:23 AM
facism is much mroe invovled then encouraging buisness. thats one aspect, but not the sole aspect.

...

secretary of state, attorny general and national securtiy advisor. boy those sound like token positiosn to me :lol:
Again, it depends on who you ask. I would say that this encourages fascism becase corporations are inherantly authoritarian and states are the same, though with a democracy lacking a capitalist interferance it can be productive as well. I don't expect a right wing libertarian to agree with the point on corporations (though many have adamantly opposed corporations in general) but that's my view.

As to the second response... attny. general is the only position which truly grants POWER. Tokens also don't have to be 1 or 2 amongst a few dozen prominent positions, either - the republicans need the black vote to some degree, and putting blacks in positions that give them regular appearances on the news makes the administration appear impartial to race. Again, I am not certain that he himself is racist, because as we all know political action is not usually dictated as much by personal belief as it is by political viability. In action it is hard to say that the republcan committee is racist either: who cares what race you are, if you can be used? The point here is to show that politcs may use racist assumptions as long as they work (tokens, I'm sure the democrats use it too) but that does not mean that their racism goes any further than that. Indvidual beliefs may be completely different - many people that have done great thigns for some blacks have been racist, namely woodrow wilson and Abraham Lincoln.

Sugar Hill Kevis

13th July 2006, 20:21

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 04:37 AM
Banned George Bush -- racism, sexism, homophobia, imperialism, preaching, trolling, and generally being an incomprehensible dolt.
does being an incomprehensible dolt take into acount that he's typing completely in illegible text speak?

Jazzratt

13th July 2006, 20:33

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 04:37 AM

Anyway, I am just wondering if George Bush were to create an account on this forum in OI and you KNEW it was him, what would you say?

Banned George Bush -- racism, sexism, homophobia, imperialism, preaching, trolling, and generally being an incomprehensible dolt.
Jesus, looking at that any number of banned members could have been ol' Georgie in disguse :P

Si Pinto

13th July 2006, 21:01

I do not like Bush, and I doubt many of you do, and believe it or not we probably have that in common.

For someone who hates him that was the best Bush type quote I've seen in ages.

"duhhhhh most of our imports come from overseas".

How long did it take you to work that out?

But before you start calling us comrade and removing your 'I Love Nixon' posters off the wall you ought to know something.

We won't like his successor either. Even if it's the one you voted for.

Why we don't like him is two different things as far as economics is concerned, but on some things we may have the same reasons.

I should think 99.9% of people on this forum don't give a damn about Bush's economics, the idiot probably can't spell it anyway.

The US's economics don't alter that much whether it's a Democrat or Republican in charge. They are both after the same thing, they just have slightly different methods of getting there.

Bush isn't the enemy anyway, he's just a puppet like Reagan was. The real enemy is the administration he sits on top of, the faceless and (mostly) nameless neo-conservatives who actually run the show.

Mind you if I had a name like Newt Gingrich (or whatever) I'd probably want it kept quiet as well.

The big difference is that you'd replace him with someone who lowered your taxes, reduced the size of government, privatised social security etc etc etc.

We on RevLeft on the other hand couldn't care less if he was replaced with a fucking 'Buzz' Lightyear™ Doll!!!.

The policies would still be the same.

Anti-Red

13th July 2006, 21:12

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 03:58 AM
In practice, he seems to be all of these, but personally he could be much more liberal than he acts.
I think that the left thinks he is more extreme on "moral" issues than he actually is and the right thinks he is with them more than he actually is.

Janus

13th July 2006, 21:15

I think that the left thinks he is more extreme on "moral" issues than he actually is
Well, when he believes that "God" wanted him to be president and due to his religious conservatism, I would think that is a good assumption to be made on our part.

power... UNLIMITED POWER!

14th July 2006, 11:05

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 06:16 PM

I think that the left thinks he is more extreme on \"moral\" issues than he actually is
Well, when he believes that \"God\" wanted him to be president and due to his religious conservatism, I would think that is a good assumption to be made on our part.
haha dubya is funny but better than a communist any day thank you veru much.

Janus

14th July 2006, 11:09

haha dubya is funny but better than a communist any day thank you veru much.
:blink:
OK... who is dubya?

power... UNLIMITED POWER!

14th July 2006, 11:35

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 08:10 AM

haha dubya is funny but better than a communist any day thank you veru much.
:blink:
OK... who is dubya?
Oh none other than the presiding president of the US.

theraven

14th July 2006, 13:49

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 08:10 AM

haha dubya is funny but better than a communist any day thank you veru much.
:blink:
OK... who is dubya?
your not framialri with that nick!!

Si Pinto

14th July 2006, 13:59

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 08:10 AM

haha dubya is funny but better than a communist any day thank you veru much.
:blink:
OK... who is dubya?
George W Bush

=

George 'dubya' Bush

;)

RedAnarchist

14th July 2006, 14:03

if he did come here, i'm sure we would all (and this includes some of the OI'ers as well) enjoy trashing his arguments so much that he ends up curled up in a puddle of his own piss. :lol:

Rollo

14th July 2006, 14:22

Originally posted by Anti-Red+Jul 14 2006, 04:13 AM--> (Anti-Red @ Jul 14 2006, 04:13 AM)
[email protected] 13 2006, 03:58 AM
In practice, he seems to be all of these, but personally he could be much more liberal than he acts.
I think that the left thinks he is more extreme on "moral" issues than he actually is and the right thinks he is with them more than he actually is. [/b]
I think the right wing extremists are a bunch of idiots. Especialy the people who deny the holocaust. I got into an argument with a cost denying moron and he said that i was denying ches murdering of innocent children and other stupid things. Some people huh.

power... UNLIMITED POWER!

14th July 2006, 15:36

Originally posted by Rollo+Jul 14 2006, 11:23 AM--> (Rollo @ Jul 14 2006, 11:23 AM)
Originally posted by Anti-[email protected] 14 2006, 04:13 AM

[email protected] 13 2006, 03:58 AM
In practice, he seems to be all of these, but personally he could be much more liberal than he acts.
I think that the left thinks he is more extreme on \"moral\" issues than he actually is and the right thinks he is with them more than he actually is.
I think the right wing extremists are a bunch of idiots. Especialy the people who deny the holocaust. I got into an argument with a cost denying moron and he said that i was denying ches murdering of innocent children and other stupid things. Some people huh. [/b]
uh? yeah..... some peopel huh? :rolleyes:

Indeed, all totalitarians are mass murderers. Communists too you know. Che is nothing more than a mass murderer of high order. He would be on the most wanted if he were alive today you know, but I suppose that would appeal to the romantic side of you jerks right?

Si Pinto

14th July 2006, 16:33

Originally posted by power... UNLIMITED POWER!@Jul 14 2006, 12:37 PM
uh? yeah..... some peopel huh? :rolleyes:

Indeed, all totalitarians are mass murderers. Communists too you know. Che is nothing more than a mass murderer of high order. He would be on the most wanted if he were alive today you know, but I suppose that would appeal to the romantic side of you jerks right?
Can't you come up with anything more original than Che bashing?

40 years and you cappies still can't let go can you.

and you say Communists live in the past? :lol:

He would be on the most wanted if he were alive today you know

If he was the murderer you repeatedly say he was, and he was still alive, I'd be more worried about who was on his list wouldn't you? :ph34r:

but I suppose that would appeal to the romantic side of you jerks right?

:rolleyes: Nothing like an informed debate is there? <_<

power... UNLIMITED POWER!

14th July 2006, 17:15

Cant you come up with anything more original than Che bashing?

40 years and you cappies still cant let go can you.

and you say Communists live in the past?
But he killed thousands of people. It was a crime. Whats to let go?

If he was the murderer you repeatedly say he was, and he was still alive, Id be more worried about who was on his list wouldnt you?
Whats that supposed to mean? You threatening me?

Nothing like an informed debate is there?
Just so long as you know your messaiah was nothing more than a lowlife im content.

MKS

14th July 2006, 18:38

I don’t think Bush is a racist.
I don’t like his administration, and he has led the US into it's decline (which is either good or bad depending on who you ask).

If he were on this forum I would ask him why he over extended the American Military by waging a war on a nation that is dominated by almost impossible culutral-religous schisms, a nation that is not ready for Republican Democracy, and a nation that is at it's most basic level a creation of the Western Empires (mainly England). And I would ask him why, if he is so interested in stopping “crimes against humanity”, he hasn’t sent troops to Darfur, to the Congo, or to Communist N. Korea to depose the brutal regimes which have killed and continue to kill millions. I would also ask him why he insists on trampling the civil liberties of citizens in the name of National Security, and why he continually expands the neo-liberal agenda.

I would also ask him if he would consider resigning, and how the Federal Government would respond to the secession of some of the states from the Union. Then I would ask him whose lips were softer against his ass, Cheney's or Roves's?

I don’t think Bush does what he does out of malevolence, I don’t think any of “them” do, I do think they hold a genuine belief in what they are doing is the right thing for America and for the world.

Jazzratt

14th July 2006, 18:52

Originally posted by power... UNLIMITED POWER!@Jul 14 2006, 02:16 PM

Nothing like an informed debate is there?
Just so long as you know your messaiah was nothing more than a lowlife im content.
:lol: :lol: "Messiah" :lol: :lol: Wow, I bet you were homeskulde gode. Marxism is not a relegion, we do not "follow" che blindly as some Messiah type figure. Fuck it, some on the left don't even like him. I suggest you learn a little before coming back because I'm fed up of time wasting little flamebait shits like you.

Si Pinto

14th July 2006, 19:28

Originally posted by power... UNLIMITED POWER!@Jul 14 2006, 02:16 PM
Whats that supposed to mean? You threatening me?
:lol: a little paranoid arn't we?

Perhaps you'd like to explain how....

If he was the murderer you repeatedly say he was, and he was still alive, Id be more worried about who was on his list wouldnt you?

in anyway constitutes me threatening you?

Your the one stating that he'd be on the US's most wanted list if he was still alive (which is a fucking pointless thing to say anyway, but like I said there is nothing like a well informed debate :rolleyes: ).

All I'm saying is that if he was still alive, and he was the 'evil murdering commie' that your portraying him as, he'd have a list of his own wouldn't he?

This is a stupid fucking discussion anyway, which it always becomes when you guys resort to name calling and shit chucking.

Janus

14th July 2006, 19:52

But he killed thousands of people. It was a crime. Whats to let go?
He? He presided over public trials in which the general public decided on what to do with the criminals.

VermontLeft

14th July 2006, 20:36

power... UNLIMITED POWER!

15th July 2006, 03:09

a little paranoid arnt we?

Perhaps youd like to explain how....
just dont mess with me and youll be ok, right?

Your the one stating that hed be on the USs most wanted list if he was still alive (which is a fucking pointless thing to say anyway, but like I said there is nothing like a well informed debate ).
yo. Most wanted international terrorist right? Armed and dangerous. known for killing innocent civilisaians en mass execution-style. Do not approach. Contanct your nerast law enforcement agency. Anyway, how come CIA found him if not most wanted? But I suppose you enjoy the romance of that right? Hence the avatar right?

All Im saying is that if he was still alive, and he was the evil murdering commie that your portraying him as, hed have a list of his own wouldt he?

Right, whats that supposed to mean? You threatening me? I aint on no list.

Janus

15th July 2006, 03:14

Most wanted international terrorist right? Armed and dangerous. known for killing innocent civilisaians en mass execution-style. Do not approach.
Che a terrorist? Anyone opposed to the ruling class is called a terrorist despite the fact that the US conducts terrorism of its own. You should read up on Che before making wild accusations like that. He presided over the courts but that was it, the people sentenced the criminals from the former Batista regime.

Anyway, how come CIA found him if not most wanted?
The CIA never found him. The Bolivian army did.

power... UNLIMITED POWER!

15th July 2006, 03:29

Che a terrorist? Anyone opposed to the ruling class is called a terrorist despite the fact that the US conducts terrorism of its own. You should read up on Che before making wild accusations like that. He presided over the courts but that was it, the people sentenced the criminals from the former Batista regime.

Yah. Che was a terrorist, just like the modern ones. And US conducts no terrorism. Its called war. Rules of war include terrorist acts. Individuals like Ossama have no right to conduct war under international rules. only nations. Hence the terrorist label. But you call that revolutoinary right? And there no capitalist criminals. Its impossible. All Batista people falseley accused innocents. They wanted to make Cuba a wondergul place to be. Now its a gulag. Hope Castro has a heart attack soon or falls down some stair or something.

Anyway, how come CIA found him if not most wanted?

The CIA never found him. The Bolivian army did.
So long as they got the maniac in the end its ok. But that just turned him into a romantic figure right? What if Castro died young and Che was an old goat? Youd ignore Che and have photos of Castro right? So they should have kept him alive in a Bolivian assylym or somthing to stop this maddness.

Janus

15th July 2006, 03:39

And US conducts no terrorism
I'm talking about when the US isn't in a war. So when the US participates in terrorism against Cuba or sponsors ex-Guardia in Nicaragua then it's ok?

And there no capitalist criminals. Its impossible. All Batista people falseley accused innocents.
:lol: No capitalist criminals? So whatever a capitalist does is ok then whether they repress, steal, or exploit?

All Batista people falseley accused innocents.
No, they all committed some type of crime such as murder.

So long as they got the maniac in the end its ok.
Yes, someone who stands up for their beliefs is a maniac. :rolleyes:

But that just turned him into a romantic figure right? What if Castro died young and Che was an old goat? Youd ignore Che and have photos of Castro right?
No, Che left a comfortable life twice to help others. Once Fidel won in Cuba, he stayed there.

But that just turned him into a romantic figure right? What if Castro died young and Che was an old goat? Youd ignore Che and have photos of Castro right?
They didn't do that because they assumed that there would be too much international sympathy for him.

power... UNLIMITED POWER!

15th July 2006, 03:53

I\'m talking about when the US isn\'t in a war. So when the US participates in terrorism against Cuba or sponsors ex-Guardia in Nicaragua then it\'s ok?

US is always at war as they are the global cop on the beat. Hence always in the clear as legal. Plus USA isnt a totalitarian state and partial democracy makes things very transperant so all corruption murder eventually exposed. Hence a disincentive to commit global crime. Hnece US acts as a moral force in the world.

No capitalist criminals? So whatever a capitalist does is ok then whether they repress, steal, or exploit?
No long as they dont violate someones property without their permission its ok. This is the only law we need. Also one self is ones own property.

Yes, someone who stands up for their beliefs is a maniac.

No, someone who murders is a maniac.

No, Che left a comfortable life twice to help others. Once Fidel won in Cuba, he stayed there.
He is also a self-interested egomaniac murdering scumbag. The Batista state let him live after his treason. Did he show the same mercy to others? Not really huh?

They didn\'t do that because they assumed that there would be too much international sympathy for him.
Yeah. But I wish they didnt kill him. It would be fun to throw rotten tomatoes at him as a tourist attraction for the Bolivian state. They could make it $1000 a throw and then get a t-shirt saying I trashed Che Gueverra and all I got was this lousy T-shirt, just like meeting Ronnie Biggs in Brazil. im sure a few westerners would find it funny. No offence or anything if you like him. But I dont becuse he smashed up Cuba bigtime.

Janus

15th July 2006, 04:16

US is always at war as they are the global cop on the beat.
No, they just think they are.

Hence always in the clear as legal.
Yeah, the US can do it 'cause they're the US. :rolleyes: And when the rest of the world condemns it, it's still ok.

No, someone who murders is a maniac.
Che murdered no one.

The Batista state let him live after his treason.
Bad decision on their part, huh? Letting him live so he could have them executed later for their crimes against the people.

It would be fun to throw rotten tomatoes at him as a tourist attraction for the Bolivian state.
$1000 a throw? Only the top state officials could afford that back in 1967.

But I dont becuse he smashed up Cuba bigtime.
Yes, he helped to free the people from US hegemony which means he smashed it up in your terms. :rolleyes:

Si Pinto

15th July 2006, 04:31

Originally posted by power... UNLIMITED POWER!@Jul 15 2006, 12:10 AM
Right, whats that supposed to mean? You threatening me? I aint on no list.
I haven't said you fucking are!!!!!

Jeez :rolleyes:

just dont mess with me and youll be ok, right?

Are you threatening me?

power... UNLIMITED POWER!

15th July 2006, 04:55

Originally posted by Si Pinto+Jul 15 2006, 01:32 AM--> (Si Pinto @ Jul 15 2006, 01:32 AM)
power... UNLIMITED POWER!@Jul 15 2006, 12:10 AM
Right, whats that supposed to mean? You threatening me? I aint on no list.
I haven\'t said you fucking are!!!!!

Jeez :rolleyes:

just dont mess with me and youll be ok, right?

Are you threatening me? [/b]

Are you threatening me?
Actually you made the threat first. I was just defending myself.

Dean

15th July 2006, 04:56

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 03:53 PM
:lol: :lol: "Messiah" :lol: :lol: Wow, I bet you were homeskulde gode. Marxism is not a relegion, we do not "follow" che blindly as some Messiah type figure. Fuck it, some on the left don't even like him. I suggest you learn a little before coming back because I'm fed up of time wasting little flamebait shits like you.
Flaming is basically the use of the OI boards. People like theraven and this fellow who offer little by the way of constructive or realistic argument are apparently the most common on this section of the board.

power... UNLIMITED POWER!

15th July 2006, 05:00

Originally posted by Dean+Jul 15 2006, 01:57 AM--> (Dean @ Jul 15 2006, 01:57 AM)
[email protected] 14 2006, 03:53 PM
:lol: :lol: \"Messiah\" :lol: :lol: Wow, I bet you were homeskulde gode. Marxism is not a relegion, we do not \"follow\" che blindly as some Messiah type figure. Fuck it, some on the left don\'t even like him. I suggest you learn a little before coming back because I\'m fed up of time wasting little flamebait shits like you.
Flaming is basically the use of the OI boards. People like theraven and this fellow who offer little by the way of constructive or realistic argument are apparently the most common on this section of the board. [/b]
If you want realistic your not going to fint it on a revolutioanry web site. This subforum is the only place youll find it and you know it.

Rollo

15th July 2006, 10:34

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 11:17 AM

US is always at war as they are the global cop on the beat.
No, they just think they are.

Hence always in the clear as legal.
Yeah, the US can do it 'cause they're the US. :rolleyes: And when the rest of the world condemns it, it's still ok.

No, someone who murders is a maniac.
Che murdered no one.

The Batista state let him live after his treason.
Bad decision on their part, huh? Letting him live so he could have them executed later for their crimes against the people.

It would be fun to throw rotten tomatoes at him as a tourist attraction for the Bolivian state.
$1000 a throw? Only the top state officials could afford that back in 1967.

But I dont becuse he smashed up Cuba bigtime.
Yes, he helped to free the people from US hegemony which means he smashed it up in your terms. :rolleyes:
Murder is when a person kills another person. So in theory che was a murderer and every patriotic fighter in iraq is too! Even assisting in murder is a form of murder. So every taxpayer helping fund the troops is a murderer! Ironic right? If you've read any of Che's books you would know that he once had to make the decision of taking the medicine bag or the ammunition bag, he took he ammunition bag.

Si Pinto

15th July 2006, 11:51

Originally posted by power... UNLIMITED POWER!@Jul 15 2006, 01:56 AM
Actually you made the threat first. I was just defending myself.

Show me were I threatened you. Go on quote it.

I didn't threaten you, you just read it that way, which is not my problem.

I don't threaten people on an internet forum,

a) It's silly

b) because I'd get banned

c) because I'm not into trying to overpower people on here by making stupid threats on a forum, like certain other people, trying to prove how 'hard' they are and scare the 'wimpish commies' away.

As usual you prove what you guys are actually here for...and it isn't informed debate is it.

As for your threat...I'll let it drop this time...but next time...I'll make sure that you get yourself banned.

power... UNLIMITED POWER!

15th July 2006, 12:00

Si Pinto, you missed all the fun. Like 40 posts have just been erased from this thread by some serios business communist.

Scottishpinko wanted me to duel with him in Somalia of all places and to meet him outside the US embassy in one week. So dont say I dont get threatened here. Then I exposed him for the 14 y.o. kid that he was and after that mass deletion occured. History was literally erased by the Tsarist secret police. This would not happen on protestwarrrior. Consider this a formal letter of protest to the management of this forum who pretend not to be totatlitarian.

Now as for you, you did not it is true threaten me to the extent of Scottishpinko who said he was going to kill me. You can look in the trash if no-one belives me.

As for your threat...I\'ll let it drop this time...but next time...I\'ll make sure that you get yourself banned.
You threatening me again huh?

Si Pinto

15th July 2006, 12:11

Scottishpinko wanted me to duel with him in Somalia of all places and to meet him outside the US embassy in one week. So dont say I dont get threatened here.

:lol:

Did he link you to his dueling site? no?...shame

Then I exposed him for the 14 y.o. kid that he was and after that mass deletion occured.

Really how interesting -_-

Is that what your here for?

As for your threat...I\'ll let it drop this time...but next time...I\'ll make sure that you get yourself banned.
You threatening me again huh?

Well try it again and find out....you 'big' 'bad' hero you.....

power... UNLIMITED POWER!

15th July 2006, 12:18

Did he link you to his dueling site? no?...shame

You mean the picture of his boyfriend/mother? Yeah I saw that. I sent him a message of thanks in rather colourful language which I regret now. I hope he forgives me.

Really how interesting

Is that what your here for?
He says he wants to duel me in bloody somalia outside the US embassy and then I find out he was born in 92. I aint duelling no kid.

QUOTE
QUOTE
As for your threat...I\\\'ll let it drop this time...but next time...I\\\'ll make sure that you get yourself banned.

You threatening me again huh?

Well try it again and find out....you \'big\' \'bad\' hero you.....
What the hell is that suppose to mean, and how can you possibly ban me? You aint no admin.

Rollo

15th July 2006, 12:56

No offence to him but a 14 year old has no place making such idle threats of dualing outside the US embassy in somalia. But really power if this was stormfront and you were discussing red ideaology you would have been banned by now. Not a coincidence.

Si Pinto

15th July 2006, 12:58

Actually I've just read all the deleted stuff.

You may have established his age (he may be kidding) and his sexuality.

So what?

I think what really strikes me about those posts is how badly you 'curried your shreddies' back there.

Now if you can do without me in the nursery for a while I've got to get some fresh air.

Vladislav

15th July 2006, 13:13

Scottish Pinko may have put the wrong age down. You think everyone on this forum puts down the correct information?

And anyway you couldn't subtract correctly so you thought he was 16. Nice going.

Don't make such a big deal out of little thing, power.

On topic: Bush would get banned if he joined this forum. There's probably a friggin automatic ban bot which detects Bush.

power... UNLIMITED POWER!

15th July 2006, 15:13

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 10:14 AM
Scottish Pinko may have put the wrong age down. You think everyone on this forum puts down the correct information?

And anyway you couldn\'t subtract correctly so you thought he was 16. Nice going.

Don\'t make such a big deal out of little thing, power.

On topic: Bush would get banned if he joined this forum. There\'s probably a friggin automatic ban bot which detects Bush.
So what if I mistook his age. Everyone makes mistakes - except you guys I suppose. Not like its got a lot to do with anything though. Why dont you just stick to the issues at hand?

I think what really strikes me about those posts is how badly you \'curried your shreddies\' back there.
Is that an insult?

Now if you can do without me in the nursery for a while I\'ve got to get some fresh air.
Nursey wtf? This whole forum is a nursery. Whats the average age here?

BobKKKindle$

15th July 2006, 15:30

Individuals like Ossama have no right to conduct war under international rules. only nations. Hence the terrorist label. But you call that revolutoinary right?

Please Clarify which Document of international law you are referring to in this instance. I will for the moment assume you are referring to the Geneva Convention. The GC does allow for 'non state actors' under the additional 1977 protocol which was written following the Arab-israeli conflict in which the PLO played a significant role despite not being a state. However, that aside how can you criticize insurgents for not following 'International law' (which you are ignorant of) when America has repeatedly defied the UN (The Central body of International law) especially in regard to the invasion of Iraq.

The Same general Principle applies to the DPRK's Nuclear Program. The US criticizes North Korea on the basis that the development of nuclear weapons is forbidden by the Non-Proliferation treaty, but fails to identify an identical violation on the Part of Israel due to Israel's strategic position in the Middle east.

Terroists often resort to Terroism when they have no other means of expressing and accomplishing their political aims; a good example of this is the ETA in Catalonia or the IRA in Ireland; now that they have been given representation and reigonal assembies, these groups have renounced Violence. Revolutionary leftism can by definition not be implemented through the bourgeois political process, nor can we have our voices heard, and so we are willing to resort to violence (although maybe not terroism; a difference exists between political violence and terroism)

But back to the original question; I would question Bush on the Objectives of his foreign policy, paying particualry attention to the Marxist Analysis of Imperialism (The Conquest of Resources and Markets) in addition to the existance of a military-industrial complex.

power... UNLIMITED POWER!

15th July 2006, 15:51

Please Clarify which Document of international law you are referring to in this instance. I will for the moment assume you are referring to the Geneva Convention. The GC does allow for \'non state actors\' under the additional 1977 protocol which was written following the Arab-israeli conflict in which the PLO played a significant role despite not being a state. However, that aside how can you criticize insurgents for not following \'International law\' (which you are ignorant of) when America has repeatedly defied the UN (The Central body of International law) especially in regard to the invasion of Iraq.
Im not sure the document or the current form of the document. I think its the international rules of war or something which goes back like 130 years or something.

Terroists often resort to Terroism when they have no other means of expressing and accomplishing their political aims; a good example of this is the ETA in Catalonia or the IRA in Ireland; now that they have been given representation and reigonal assembies, these groups have renounced Violence. Revolutionary leftism can by definition not be implemented through the bourgeois political process, nor can we have our voices heard, and so we are willing to resort to violence (although maybe not terroism; a difference exists between political violence and terroism)
I accept the difference between political violence and terrorism. Terrorism is extremists and political violence a majority mob taking control, which cannot I suppose be considered extreme if they have support.

and so we are willing to resort to violence
Someone like you would probably be willing to line capitalists up on a wall and put your bayonette through them? Right? :rolleyes:

But back to the original question; I would question Bush on the Objectives of his foreign policy, paying particualry attention to the Marxist Analysis of Imperialism (The Conquest of Resources and Markets) in addition to the existance of a military-industrial complex.
Like hes gunna understand that! BTW there is a thread down the bottom of this forum which seems to demonstrate MArxs support of imperialism.

BobKKKindle$

15th July 2006, 16:07

If the 'international rules of Law' as you put it were written 130 years ago, then they are Anachronisms because War has shiften from a inter-state conflict to an asymetrical conflict involvoing forces that are not necssarily tied to any nation State - Non State Actors. Surely all statutes of International law, if they are to have any significance, must adapt to changing geo political conditions? You have also failed to deal with the issue of Hypocrisy - why should Terroist Groups who attack the United States be described as 'illegitimate' when the US has committed innumerable contraventions of international law itself?! THe Convention on Human Rights if of Particular note.

Someone like you would probably be willing to line capitalists up on a wall and put your bayonette through them? Right

If it advances the interests of Worker's revolution, then yes, I would be willing to do that.

power... UNLIMITED POWER!

15th July 2006, 16:17

If the international rules of Law as you put it were written 130 years ago, then they are Anachronisms because War has shiften from a inter-state conflict to an asymetrical conflict involvoing forces that are not necssarily tied to any nation State - Non State Actors.
Fair enough.

Surely all statutes of International law, if they are to have any significance, must adapt to changing geo political conditions? You have also failed to deal with the issue of Hypocrisy - why should Terroist Groups who attack the United States be described as \'illegitimate\' when the US has committed innumerable contraventions of international law itself?! THe Convention on Human Rights if of Particular note.
I know the us is hypocritical. But I not you sort of support North Korea so I would have thought thats a bigger issue than arguably one of the freest countries in teh world right?

If it advances the interests of Workers revolution, then yes, I would be willing to do that.

Sigh. I know.

But may I ask why does hiring workers deserve the death sentence? Surely it is a lesser crime than execution, right? What has happened to your family that makes you want vengeance?

The Resistor

15th July 2006, 16:20

http://sf.indymedia.org/cuba/topth_bushnazi.jpg

*Bush arrived at the forum*

BobKKKindle$

15th July 2006, 16:40

I know the us is hypocritical. But I not you sort of support North Korea so I would have thought thats a bigger issue than arguably one of the freest countries in teh world right?

The US does admittedly afford more civil liberties to its citizens, but that does not mean that it less of a security threat to the international community and a stable international environement. The Military, political and Economic Strength of the United States allows it to impose hegemonic control over many different reigons of the World in order to preserve its interests. Iraq being a case in point. North Korea's missile Tests are Agressive and Inflammatory. But there is no excuse for stationing troops in more than 100 countries around the world and invading nation states to preserve markets and resources.

But may I ask why does hiring workers deserve the death sentence? Surely it is a lesser crime than execution, right? What has happened to your family that makes you want vengeance?

If they are unwilling to surrender the means of production to the hands of the workers voluntarily, then it may be necessary to take further action to garuentee worker's control. If the Capitalist chooses to aid the Counter Revolutionary Forces in any way, then we will likewise be forced to ensure Worker's victory through whatever means necessary.

power... UNLIMITED POWER!

15th July 2006, 16:47

The US does admittedly afford more civil liberties to its citizens, but that does not mean that it less of a security threat to the international community and a stable international environement. The Military, political and Economic Strength of the United States allows it to impose hegemonic control over many different reigons of the World in order to preserve its interests. Iraq being a case in point. North Korea\'s missile Tests are Agressive and Inflammatory. But there is no excuse for stationing troops in more than 100 countries around the world and invading nation states to preserve markets and resources.
This is true.

If they are unwilling to surrender the means of production to the hands of the workers voluntarily, then it may be necessary to take further action to garuentee worker\'s control. If the Capitalist chooses to aid the Counter Revolutionary Forces in any way, then we will likewise be forced to ensure Worker\'s victory through whatever means necessary.
But youll go to jail if the revolution fails and then youll be sorry, right? Better to drop this whole nasty business and live your life as a capitalist, right? Then no one gets hurt, right?

BobKKKindle$

15th July 2006, 18:17

This is true.

Fair enough.

I know the us is hypocritical

I respect you, most of the Restricted members simply refuse to admit that in some cases their arguments have flaws. We need more people like you (at least in terms of decorum) in the Opposing ideology section!

But youll go to jail if the revolution fails and then youll be sorry, right? Better to drop this whole nasty business and live your life as a capitalist, right? Then no one gets hurt, right?

If I participated in a Revolution that seemed doomed to fail, I would try and rally the revolutionary movement with all the resources I had avaliable, but if there seemed no hope of defeating the counter revolution through the dictatorship of the proletariat and through the forces of the workers militia I would probably try and flee the country the establish a Revolutionary goverment in exile, in a similair manner to Chiang kai Shek in 1949 when it was clear that the Maoists were victorious in the Chinese Civil War.

Dean

15th July 2006, 19:59

Originally posted by power... UNLIMITED POWER!@Jul 15 2006, 12:14 PM
So what if I mistook his age. Everyone makes mistakes - except you guys I suppose. Not like its got a lot to do with anything though. Why dont you just stick to the issues at hand?
If I'm to find more realism here (I'll spare the ironic remarks on your grammar) will it be in the form of childish arguments about age and where in somalia you are going to beat up a 14 year old?

Seriously, you have to present yourself a bit better to be taken seriosly.

theraven

15th July 2006, 22:00

Re: applying internatial law to non-state warrios

the reason why this is unreasonable and increidbly stupid is mutlifold

1) these people are not responsible for recipricol actions, nro did they sign these treaties. only signotories of the treaties get the treatment of the treaties.

2) the people who we are talking about would not have fallen under the treaty even if they were state actors. they are almost always not in uniform, usually concealing their weapons and hiding among the civilian populace. this puts them in the category of "sabatour or spy" which in the battlefied can be executed at discretion of the commanding officer and are not entitled to rights of a POW

Goatse

15th July 2006, 22:36

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 09:57 AM
No offence to him but a 14 year old has no place making such idle threats of dualing outside the US embassy in somalia. But really power if this was stormfront and you were discussing red ideaology you would have been banned by now. Not a coincidence.
Not idle, I will be in Somalia next week anyway, so I will see if he has turned up.

theraven

15th July 2006, 22:49

Originally posted by ScottishPinko+Jul 15 2006, 07:37 PM--> (ScottishPinko @ Jul 15 2006, 07:37 PM)
[email protected] 15 2006, 09:57 AM
No offence to him but a 14 year old has no place making such idle threats of dualing outside the US embassy in somalia. But really power if this was stormfront and you were discussing red ideaology you would have been banned by now. Not a coincidence.
Not idle, I will be in Somalia next week anyway, so I will see if he has turned up. [/b]
who would go to somolia of all placse?

Goatse

15th July 2006, 23:17

I have relatives there? I actually find the way you worded that offensive, but I shall take it in my stride.

theraven

15th July 2006, 23:40

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 08:18 PM
I have relatives there? I actually find the way you worded that offensive, but I shall take it in my stride.
what could possibly be offesnive about that? somolia has been in a civil war for like 20 years, its clearly a very dangerous place and theres little reason to go there to vacation. thus my question

Goatse

15th July 2006, 23:49

So? They're still my relatives. This will probably be the last time I ever see them, as my grandmother has a terminal illness.

theraven

16th July 2006, 00:13

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 08:50 PM
So? They're still my relatives. This will probably be the last time I ever see them, as my grandmother has a terminal illness.
that sucks, however not knowing this (and being that i generally don't associate scotish people with having somolia relatives-not that its impossible..) i think it was a reasoable questin.

Goatse

16th July 2006, 00:17

Yes, it does suck, I was very close to my grandmother. I am quite sure I won't see Power in Somalia.

theraven

16th July 2006, 04:24

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 09:18 PM
Yes, it does suck, I was very close to my grandmother. I am quite sure I won't see Power in Somalia.
you mean like electricity?

Rollo

16th July 2006, 05:19

Is it me or have there been lots of fun arguments rising since anti-red joined? I mean he was okay for a bit but he got boring but power is absolute hilarity. Oh and he didn't mean electricity or political power he ment that guy that he wants to dual.

theraven

16th July 2006, 07:21

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 02:20 AM
Is it me or have there been lots of fun arguments rising since anti-red joined? I mean he was okay for a bit but he got boring but power is absolute hilarity. Oh and he didn't mean electricity or political power he ment that guy that he wants to dual.
ah-well duh im sure he won't show up. who the frig would fly to somalia of all places on tthe word of some forum guy. for all we know scottish pinko will never set foot in somalia while power would get lynched by a mob for looking at some guys daughters ankles a lil to long.

power... UNLIMITED POWER!

16th July 2006, 10:19

Originally posted by theraven+Jul 16 2006, 04:22 AM--> (theraven @ Jul 16 2006, 04:22 AM)
[email protected] 16 2006, 02:20 AM
Is it me or have there been lots of fun arguments rising since anti-red joined? I mean he was okay for a bit but he got boring but power is absolute hilarity. Oh and he didn\'t mean electricity or political power he ment that guy that he wants to dual.
ah-well duh im sure he won\'t show up. who the frig would fly to somalia of all places on tthe word of some forum guy. for all we know scottish pinko will never set foot in somalia while power would get lynched by a mob for looking at some guys daughters ankles a lil to long. [/b]
Ill do more than look!

If I went to Somalia, it would not be to duel a kid - but to take half my fortune there, befriend a few local powerlords, do some business, set up some companies, grow rich, hire an army, and assume control as his Regal Highness power... UNLIMITED POWER the FIRST!

Ah, dreams.... But no, I woudnt go unless I was fluent in their language. And if you want to prove anything Pinko, you need to take a photo of yourself outside the US embassy in Somalia, to PROVE the coward I am!