Anti-communists are boring

[Guild-soicalist]

To all anti-communists.

Do you know just how bored I get when you start repeating "history has proved communism wrong". I have been a communist for half a year now, if I got $1.50 for every time someone mindlessly repeats the disinformation from capitalist history books, newspapers, and films. I would be one mother****ing capitalist.

[Intellectual47]

So we're right? Since everyone seems to agree that "history has proven communism wrong", couldn't that mean that we may be right? And you communists haven't exactly proven all of history wrong.

[Guild-soicalist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2006 06:35 pm
So we're right? Since everyone seems to agree that "history has proven communism wrong", couldn't that mean that we may be right? And you communists haven't exactly proven all of history wrong.
$1.50 please.
It just proves your totally brainwashed, if you haven't noticed but the whole of your media is controlled by the capitalists. So how can you go on anything they say?

[Dimentio]

Well, before Wilbur and his brother flew the first aircraft, about 600 failed tests had occured. And society is very much more complex than an aircraft. But anyway, one of the problems with communism is the overbelief in the party and in the planning ability and rationality of the human being [technocracy has done the same fault]. But if we are aware that things could go wrong, we could create a more balanced type of a system which avoids the traps which made the Soviet Union so inefficient and repressive.

[Aeturnal Narcosis]

weak minded amerikkans are especially brainwashed exceedingly well by the media... ever notice what they call 'leftist' or 'liberal' media here is really just media whose largest financial contributors are small businesses. whether liberal or conservative, they're still controlled by business and money.

even NPR.

the following lines i quote directly from World Book Enclyclopedia, 1989 edition, volume Ci-Cz, page 899:

"Americans should be aware of the dangers of Communism."

how fucking biased is that? instead of actually presenting Communism as a 2 sided question, pointing out all of the benefits and risks involved, they completely ignored one side and presented only the capitalist side.

why? because World Book Encyclopedia is a corporation that wants nothing more than profit for their owners.

[Intellectual47]

Just because my media is owned by capitalists doesn't mean their wrong. As I recall the Communists used to believe that edson didn't invent the lightbulb, the wright brothers didn't invent the airplane and that you could make supersoldiers (http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=2434192005).

[Dimentio]

Hahaha... the ape-man supersoldier theory was already being researched upon by that Russian scientist during the Czarist time. Don't forget that was the time of eugenics and Lysenkoism - in the whole world :P

[Intellectual47]

The point was that just because the government is capitalist doesn't mean it can't be right.

[RedCeltic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2006 02:31 pm
Just because my media is owned by capitalists doesn't mean their wrong. As I recall the Communists used to believe that edson didn't invent the lightbulb, the wright brothers didn't invent the airplane and that you could make supersoldiers (http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=2434192005).
Actually the argument made against the assertion that Thomas Edison had “invented” the light bulb, in my eyes is well founded. There was not a single inventor involved in the project. In 1802 Sir Humphry Davy was able to pass electricity through a platinum strip. The French inventor De la Rue created a incandescent light in 1820. These same lights were used in 1860 to light a London theater.

Three years before Edison’s bulb was light, Joseph Swan had patented a carbon filament bulb. (1878). what Edison really perfected actually was the power supply to the bulb, yet had to take Swan into partnership in order to get around his patent.

You can pretty much see where this story is going, and it’s the same with other “inventers”. The point isn’t that people like Edison, Marconi, The Wright Brothers, etc didn’t contribute to the process, but that there had been a huge outpouring of human ingenuity that contributed to the whole process, and it took many false starts and failures to lead to the eventual success.

While the creation of a socialist society is less like an “invention” and more like a destined evolutionary process for society at large, it is kin to the process of invention, in that there as been many failures and false starts… and likely to have more of the like, until it takes fruit in the right time and place.

Lenin himself had stated that he did not think socialism would last in Russia, for Russia was a backwater imperial state that lacked the necessary industrialization and democracy for Marx’s ideas to truly be realized.

At the Battle of Long Island in 1776, while British soldiers looted homes in Brooklyn and Flatbush towns, they noted the high standard of living and wondered as the impertinence of the colonialists there who would rebel against the “rightful ruler God had chosen for them” while living in a higher standard of living than known to the British.

In fact, the idea of overthrowing a monarch was nothing new; they had recently witnessed this in their own civil war and the brutal rule of Oliver Cromwell. However the failings of Cromwellian rule should not be seen as the ultimate doom of the parliament and democracy as an institution. It would take much hard work and perseverance to make such ideas of democracy a reality.

Such is with socialism. The failings of the Soviet Union, third world dictatorships posing as “Marxist” the gangsterism and corruption that has run ripe in such places, should not be viewed as the ultimate failings of socialism as a whole, yet the falterings and false starts on the pathway to getting that carbon filament bulb brightly light for the world to see.

[boxinghefner]

I like talking to cappies

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2006 06:35 pm
So we're right? Since everyone seems to agree that "history has proven communism wrong", couldn't that mean that we may be right? And you communists haven't exactly proven all of history wrong.
Ironic that somebody with your username resorts to such an obvious fallacy...

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2006 01:54 pm
Well, before Wilbur and his brother flew the first aircraft, about 600 failed tests had occured. And society is very much more complex than an aircraft. But anyway, one of the problems with communism is the overbelief in the party and in the planning ability and rationality of the human being [technocracy has done the same fault]. But if we are aware that things could go wrong, we could create a more balanced type of a system which avoids the traps which made the Soviet Union so inefficient and repressive.
Okay. So describe this system which avoids those traps which bedeviled the USSR.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Aeturnal [email protected] 13, 2006 02:13 pm
weak minded amerikkans are especially brainwashed exceedingly well by the media... ever notice what they call 'leftist' or 'liberal' media here is really just media whose largest financial contributors are small businesses. whether liberal or conservative, they're still controlled by business and money.

even NPR.

the following lines i quote directly from World Book Enclyclopedia, 1989 edition, volume Ci-Cz, page 899:

"Americans should be aware of the dangers of Communism."

how fucking biased is that? instead of actually presenting Communism as a 2 sided question, pointing out all of the benefits and risks involved, they completely ignored one side and presented only the capitalist side.

why? because World Book Encyclopedia is a corporation that wants nothing more than profit for their owners.
Oh, we should see both sides of the issue.

So what are the benefits and pluses of National Socialism?

[RedCeltic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2006 09:43 pm

Oh, we should see both sides of the issue.

So what are the benefits and pluses of National Socialism?
Population control and Jackboots? :unsure:

[Zeruzo]

Oh, we should see both sides of the issue.

So what are the benefits and pluses of National Socialism?

According to the Nazi's?

- Social darwinism, thus evolutionary strengthening.
- Racial seperation (which is a part of they're perception of Social Darwinism)
- A strong state.
- Some odd form of semi anti-capitalism and pro-capitalism at the same time, but this was mostly done by Hitler to atract both Workers and Capitalists.
- A strong economy

Well thats the most important ones i guess...

[Intellectual47]

Actually the argument made against the assertion that Thomas Edison had “invented” the light bulb, in my eyes is well founded. There was not a single inventor involved in the project. In 1802 Sir Humphry Davy was able to pass electricity through a platinum strip. The French inventor De la Rue created a incandescent light in 1820. These same lights were used in 1860 to light a London theater.
I think you misunderstodd me. What I meant was that Soviet propaganda claimed that russian scientists invented the lightbulb, train, plane, and car. They claimed that the russian scientists had invented them. Kind like in "1984".

[RedCeltic]

Well, actually they funded social projects like the Autobahn; they had full employment, and brought Germany out of a depression.

Most good encyclopedias like Britannica are fairly objective about both Communism and fascism. World Book is pretty much shit and always has been. Especially if you are going to pick up an edition printed during the cold war and look up communism.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

What don't you understand about capitalism?

We're not anarchists or fascists. We're free-market CAPITALISTS. Property rights still must be protected by rule of law. That's EVERYONE'S property rights from the initiation of force from people who seek to violate our rights. Whether it be from other capitalists, employees, or corrupt state officials.

We depend on the state for one thing and one thing only. And that is to PROTECT an environment that is conducive to capitalism.

Private property rights are essential to freedom.

So again, why are you against the notion of property rights?

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 14, 2006 02:07 pm
That's EVERYONE'S property rights
"The law in it's magnificent equality forbids rich and poor equally from begging and sleeping under bridges"

[dannie]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2006 02:52 pm

Actually the argument made against the assertion that Thomas Edison had “invented” the light bulb, in my eyes is well founded. There was not a single inventor involved in the project. In 1802 Sir Humphry Davy was able to pass electricity through a platinum strip. The French inventor De la Rue created a incandescent light in 1820. These same lights were used in 1860 to light a London theater.
I think you misunderstodd me. What I meant was that Soviet propaganda claimed that russian scientists invented the lightbulb, train, plane, and car. They claimed that the russian scientists had invented them. Kind like in "1984".
It seems you really enjoyed 1984 as this is the second or third topic i see you mentioning it. I did too but it has nothing to do with the USSR as it is a fictional book based on a fictional society. Furthermore, I believe you completly missed the point RedCeltic was trying to make.
What he pointed out was that amerikan history tries to make amerika (or americans) look good, just as the soviet union tried to make itself look good. But social change is a process, just like the invention of the lightbulb was. You cannot use the USSR as an argument against the whole revolutionary left project. Because if you do, you must speak out against the current system of organisation, wich makes the same mistakes the USSR made in relation to history and education.


Intellectual47, this one's for you, see if you can work it out!


Just a question for technocrats, Isn't a technocracy just "1984"? Stalinist Russia would be exactly like "1984", but they hadn't invented the telescreen yet. So really your just giving communism more high-tech stuff to spy on people with.

Since you are basically high-tech communists.


As I recall "1984" didn't have laws either.


I think you misunderstodd me. What I meant was that Soviet propaganda claimed that russian scientists invented the lightbulb, train, plane, and car. They claimed that the russian scientists had invented them. Kind like in "1984".



Oh and a small sidenote, psychologists say that if you use one word too many times, it shows that you have a low intellect because you can't think of something else to say.

[Intellectual47]

I use "1984" many times because it is a great book and I see many parrallels in USSR in that book. I just like it. Do want me to use a non-fiction book like "Man is Wolf to Man" instead?

Also, the soviet union blantantly told a complete lie to their people. We say a half-truth. We say edison patented the lightbulb. Of course other people helped but that part is true. The Soviets said that a russian invented the lightbulb, the end. I'll try to find his name and a link for you.

[Intellectual47]

I have a question.
Ya'll really don't like that that I'm a Christian. Would you say the same thing to a muslim? In america we have this huge fear of ever insulting a muslim so I'm wondering if ya'll have that fear over in Europe.

[RedCeltic]

Also, the soviet union blantantly told a complete lie to their people

The Soviet Union told alot of lies to their people.... so what?

(EDIT:)

Like the U.S. Didn't lie us into Iraq? (WMD)
Like the U.S. Didn't lie us into Vietnam? (Gulf of Tonkin)
Like the U.S. Didn't lie us into WW1 (War to end all wars)
Like the U.S. Didn't lie to get us into the Spanish American war? Civil war? Mexican American war? etc etc....

The Soviet Union was a failure on many levels, yet you continue to bring this up as if we disagree with you on that point.

In fact, the book you continue to referance titled "1984" was writen by a SOCIALIAST!!!! And yes, it fits the USSR nicely for a very good reason.

[RebelDog]

Who would want to live in a police state.

The police.

[dannie]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2006 05:07 pm
I use "1984" many times because it is a great book and I see many parrallels in USSR in that book. I just like it. Do want me to use a non-fiction book like "Man is Wolf to Man" instead?

Also, the soviet union blantantly told a complete lie to their people. We say a half-truth. We say edison patented the lightbulb. Of course other people helped but that part is true. The Soviets said that a russian invented the lightbulb, the end. I'll try to find his name and a link for you.
from wikipedia:

Half-truths are deceptive statements, that include some element of truth. The statement might be partly true, the statement may be true but only part of the whole truth, or it may utilize some deceptive element, such as improper punctuation, especially if the intent is to deceive, evade blame or misrepresent the truth.
emphasis added

I believe the saying goes, a half truth is still a lie.
American history and history in general is filled with lies, half-truths and whatnot, so your argument is not valid.


I have a question.
Ya'll really don't like that that I'm a Christian. Would you say the same thing to a muslim? In america we have this huge fear of ever insulting a muslim so I'm wondering if ya'll have that fear over in Europe.

I'm european and in my country there is the same political corectness towards muslims. Tough I would say the same thing as I would to christians. That is that i believe we have to protect the right to choose one's own believes (as long as those believes don't harm anyone else, you know the talk), but at the same time battle organised religion.

[Intellectual47]

I believe the saying goes, a half truth is still a lie.
Yes, but edison did invent the lightbulb. Not whoever the Soviets say. I'm still trying to get his name.

[marxist troglodytes]

While the creation of a socialist society is less like an “invention” and more like a destined evolutionary process for society at large, it is kin to the process of invention, in that there as been many failures and false starts… and likely to have more of the like, until it takes fruit in the right time and place.

Wow, I was just suspended--put on punishment--by the communist commissars here for supposedly not having "substance" to my posts. Look at the crux of this guy's argument.
He (like all other leftists) is essentially saying :"give us another chance".
oooohhhh ahhhhhh I am dazzled by the brilliance of that argument :"give us another chance" ...such profundity of thought
This guy is a "genius" wow....
Red Celtic, comrade, did you come up with that argument yourself, or did your comrades put you up to it? Don't lie now...
He writes "destined evolutionary process " to herald the communist mauling of humanity. Leftists are so drunk with their "infallible" political religion that it would never even occur to them to examine if socialism is even feasible. To carry on this irrational march to the gulag, leftists need to ignore communism's wake of human bodies mutilated by their leftist comrades with the simple incantation of "those were not really communist at all..." excuses, excuses excuses...
Unreasonable illogical ideologues are the clay with which Stalin, Mao, Pol-Pot, Kim-Jong-Il etc are made of.
But look at the well of wisdom in his argument :"give us another chance" ooohhhh wow Well, thats it, I'm convinced, I am now a communist, and to celebrate my "enlightenment" I will pay for Red Celtic to have a hammer and sickle tattoed on his forehead.
And look!, how lovely , hes writing future leftists a blank check for more communist holocausts :"there as been many failures and false starts… and likely to have more of the like, until it takes fruit in the right time and place." Jesus Christ! how many more millions of people do communists want to murder, starve and torture? Slow your roll, comrades! for the love of God!! :D


Such is with socialism. The failings of the Soviet Union, third world dictatorships posing as “Marxist” the gangsterism and corruption that has run ripe in such places, should not be viewed as the ultimate failings of socialism as a whole, yet the falterings and false starts on the pathway to getting that carbon filament bulb brightly light for the world to see.

Substantiate your rhetoric, Comrade Celtic, with names. Which communists are gangsters and corrupt? Are Fidel Castro, Daniel Ortega, Hugo Chavez, Robert Mugabe, Evo Morales, Kim Jong, Vietnamese Communists all corrupt gangsters? And if they are, when are we going to see leftists take action--not lip service--to remove these ''corrupt gangsters" from their perches?
When will we see leftists rioting in the streets--not bloviating in some obscure little internet forum--to demand regime change in the countries these "corrupt gangsters" "posing as Marxist" are tyrannizing?


Lenin himself had stated that he did not think socialism would last in Russia, for Russia was a backwater imperial state that lacked the necessary industrialization and democracy for Marx’s ideas to truly be realized

See?
Leftists want the revolution to be handed to them on the silver platter of an already advanced modern economy with a sophisticated civic culture and institutions.
The hated despised and demonized "capitalists'' that turned America into the most technologically advanced, industrialized, sophisticated, tolerant, open, free society in the history of humanity had as their starting point a wilderness whos inhabitants were still living in the bronze age.
This would be like a "capitalist" settler in 17th century North America complaining that North America "lacked the necessary industrialization and democracy for "capitalist" ideas to truly be realized.
...he he he....

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

See sig.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 14, 2006 08:28 pm
See sig.
Enver Hoxha's socialist community failed. Or is that part of the "evolutionary process?"

[manic expression]

marxist troglodytes, read the Communist Manifesto. Marx explicitly states that communism comes from capitalism, because capitalism creates the conditions necessary for communism. The development of the urban proletariat, clear class distinctions, class consciousness, the proletariat's access to arms, improved communication, industrialization and more are ALL things that capitalism creates, and are ALL things which lead to revolution.

It's all there in the Manifesto.

By the way, it seems that your posts do lack substance, for most of your last post was completely incoherent. Would you agree that it may take many tries to succeed at something? Yes or no? If your answer is yes, then your argument is rendered incorrect.

Also, Kim Jong-Il calls his country "democratic". Does this mean that people who support democracy must defend his regime? Of course not, and the same goes for leftists of all stripes. The point is that a person may call themselves something, such as Marxist or Communist, but that doesn't make it so. Actions speak louder than official ideologies.

On the other hand, leftist policies have worked and have created better societies. Cuba has the best medical system in Latin America, and everyone has full and equal access to it; Cuba has a literacy rate which rates with the best western nations; Cuba's child mortality rates are considerably better than the US'; all Cubans have food, shelter and other necessities provided to them, no questions asked, while Vietnam veterans freeze to death under bridges in the US (and this is just one example of many). Take a gander at reality and maybe you'll get somewhere.

And the US is the most belligerent, aggressive, imperialist, corrupt, greedy, self-serving, hateful, ignorant, unjust, unequal, inequitable, unfair, unfree, unsophisticated, etc... power in the history of humanity. Most free? Most sophisticated? Most tolerant? You have to be kidding yourself, or you're just an idiot. Like I said, check out reality for a change.

[ShakeZula06]

Like the U.S. Didn't lie us into Iraq? (WMD)
Like the U.S. Didn't lie us into Vietnam? (Gulf of Tonkin)
Like the U.S. Didn't lie us into WW1 (War to end all wars)
Like the U.S. Didn't lie to get us into the Spanish American war? Civil war? Mexican American war? etc etc....
You're right. Let's get rid of all governments.

[mikelepore]

Private property rights are essential to freedom.

Some property is intended for personal use. Property in a coat or hat gives a person precisely the freedom to use a coat or hat.

Some property is social power. Property in the control of the supply of food or shelter or medicine is the "freedom" to trample all over the lives of other people.

That these two entirely different things are categorized by society's laws under the same concept of "property" indicates how thoroughly obsolete society's system of laws is.

[Knight of Cydonia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2006 10:20 pm
I have a question.
Ya'll really don't like that that I'm a Christian. Would you say the same thing to a muslim? In america we have this huge fear of ever insulting a muslim so I'm wondering if ya'll have that fear over in Europe.
describe the fear that you mean? why should everyone fear of muslim ? i'm a muslim and i'm not a monster to be afraid of.

[Intellectual47]

Cydonia, In America we have a huge fear of insulting any Muslim because we think they all will riot in the streets if we insult them. Like with the Danish cartoons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish_cartoons).

On the other hand, leftist policies have worked and have created better societies. Cuba has the best medical system in Latin America, and everyone has full and equal access to it; Cuba has a literacy rate which rates with the best western nations; Cuba's child mortality rates are considerably better than the US'; all Cubans have food, shelter and other necessities provided to them, no questions asked, while Vietnam veterans freeze to death under bridges in the US (and this is just one example of many). Take a gander at reality and maybe you'll get somewhere.
Hmmm. Strange. Then why does everyone who comes from cuba seem to denounce it as evil? Why aren't people from the US running to cuba for freedom? Maybe you should actually speak to a real cuban from cuba.

And the US is the most belligerent, aggressive, imperialist, corrupt, greedy, self-serving, hateful, ignorant, unjust, unequal, inequitable, unfair, unfree, unsophisticated, etc... power in the history of humanity. Most free? Most sophisticated? Most tolerant? You have to be kidding yourself, or you're just an idiot. Like I said, check out reality for a change.
I would like to refute all of these personally, but I realized I could do it much more quickley with this statement.
PROOF?

[dannie]

I would like to refute all of these personally, but I realized I could do it much more quickley with this statement.
PROOF?

[B]
Countries affected by American Imperialism:[/B]
Afghanistan
Angola
Bosnia
Cambodia
China
Chile
Cuba
The Dominican Republic
El Salvador
Greece
Grenada
Guam
Guatemala
Guyana
Haiwaï
Haïti
Honduras
Iran
Iraq
Panama
Phillipenes
Puerto Rico
Poland
Korea (North & South)
Kuwait
Laos
Libya
Nicaragua
Mexico
Samoa
Somalia
Vietnam (North & South)
Virgin Islands
Yugoslavia


check those countries out, proof enough

[Intellectual47]

Okay, I guess I'm going to have to refute these on their own.

Afghanistan: The Commie invasion did nothing?
Angola: The Commie's did as much there as we did.
Bosnia: Bosnia was screwed over by the Commie's way more than us
Cambodia:Do you deny the Khemer Rouge?
China: Again with the denial?
Chile: okay, we screwed up there. But we did give them an econmy worth being proud of. You guys use that as an excuse for the USSR
Cuba: I'm sure Communism did nothing there :rolleyes:
The DR: How is that our fault?
El Salvador: don't know enough about them to make a statement.
Greece: We affected them for the better.
Grenada: How did we screw them up?
Guam: see "Grenada"
Guatemala: They almost got elected to the security council, they're doing good.
Guyana: see "el Salvador"
Hawaii: see "Greece"
Haiti: see "DR"
Hondorus: see "Greece"
Iran: see "DR"
Iraq: they were screwed up before we messed with them
Panama: see "Greece"
Phillipines: see "Greece"
Puerto rico: see "Greece"
Poland:see "afghanistan", "Angola", or "Cambodia"
North Korea: see "cuba"
South Korea: see "Greece"
Kuwait: we saved them from Saddam
Laos: see "el Salvador", or maybe "Greece"
Nicaruagau: Our messing with them didn't change a thing
Mexico: They Love Us. We have an immigration problem with them
Samoa: little or no effect
Somalia: They screwed themselves up way more than we screwed them
Vietnam: see "Bosnia", or we tried to help them
Virgin Islands: see "Samoa"
Yugoslavia: see "Bosnia", "China", "Cuba", or "DR"

Might want to check if these countries are screwed before you post them. Where'd you get them?

[t_wolves_fan]

Who here would take the countries affected by Soviet imperialism over those affected by American imperialism?

I'd probably take eastern Europe over Central America to be fair, but then Greece, Japan, South Korea, Chile and Taiwan more than overcome that difference.

[Knight of Cydonia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2006 11:16 pm
Cydonia, In America we have a huge fear of insulting any Muslim because we think they all will riot in the streets if we insult them. Like with the Danish cartoons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish_cartoons).

so the american and you capitalist are assuming that Islam is a riotist religion? totally wrong.

oh and for that danish god damn cartoon, muslim are very mad about it coz it insulting their prophet, understood?!

[RedCeltic]

Marx explicitly states that communism comes from capitalism, because capitalism creates the conditions necessary for communism. The development of the urban proletariat, clear class distinctions, class consciousness, the proletariat's access to arms, improved communication, industrialization and more are ALL things that capitalism creates, and are ALL things which lead to revolution.


Exactly my point.


You're right. Let's get rid of all governments.

Sounds good to me.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2006 04:16 pm
Cydonia, In America we have a huge fear of insulting any Muslim because we think they all will riot in the streets if we insult them. Like with the Danish cartoons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish_cartoons).

On the other hand, leftist policies have worked and have created better societies. Cuba has the best medical system in Latin America, and everyone has full and equal access to it; Cuba has a literacy rate which rates with the best western nations; Cuba's child mortality rates are considerably better than the US'; all Cubans have food, shelter and other necessities provided to them, no questions asked, while Vietnam veterans freeze to death under bridges in the US (and this is just one example of many). Take a gander at reality and maybe you'll get somewhere.
Hmmm. Strange. Then why does everyone who comes from cuba seem to denounce it as evil? Why aren't people from the US running to cuba for freedom? Maybe you should actually speak to a real cuban from cuba.

And the US is the most belligerent, aggressive, imperialist, corrupt, greedy, self-serving, hateful, ignorant, unjust, unequal, inequitable, unfair, unfree, unsophisticated, etc... power in the history of humanity. Most free? Most sophisticated? Most tolerant? You have to be kidding yourself, or you're just an idiot. Like I said, check out reality for a change.
I would like to refute all of these personally, but I realized I could do it much more quickley with this statement.
PROOF?
No, actually, there isn't a fear of insulting Muslims because there isn't really any conflict with the Muslim-American population. Furthermore, the Muslim-American population is so low that most Americans have little contact with Muslims.

Again, you are beyond ignorant and hopelessly misled. In general, Cubans support the revolutionary government. The dissidents of Cuba are despised by the people. When you say stuff like "everyone who comes from cuba seems to denounce it as evil", it's clear that you have no idea what you're talking about. The Cuban-Americans in Miami represent a small but vocal minority, most of whom fled when the revolution occurred because they were oligarchs who didn't like the idea of poor people not starving. Why aren't people running to Cuba? Economic circumstances, as well as the fact that the US severely limits travel to Cuba. The reason some Cubans come to the US is the same, economic circumstances. You can make more money in the US than in Cuba, so some people take that chance. Also, every society has people who don't like the status quo, so it isn't really surprising that some don't like it. Lastly, the US government gives out more visas to Cubans than any other nation on Earth; the US government gives amnesty to ANY Cuban who reaches American shores; there is more incentive for Cubans to come to America than any other country in the world, and yet relatively few Cubans attempt to flee. Think about that.

And I've talked to many people who've actually been to the island and talked to Cubans in Cuba. I've also talked to many people who are Cuban about the situation. Don't patronize me, because your points are simply ridiculous and juvenile.

See post below for "proof".

[Intellectual47]

Islam has not proven itself to be a religion of "peace" by any standards. Except the "peace" that comes with the death of your enemies.

oh and for that danish god damn cartoon, muslim are very mad about it coz it insulting their prophet, understood?!
You insult Jesus all the time and I don't riot in the street. If the Muslims want to be modern, they have to be less sensitive. And those cartoons were barely offensive.

manic,

Again, you are beyond ignorant and hopelessly misled. In general, Cubans support the revolutionary government. The dissidents of Cuba are despised by the people. When you say stuff like "everyone who comes from cuba seems to denounce it as evil", it's clear that you have no idea what you're talking about. The Cuban-Americans in Miami represent a small but vocal minority, most of whom fled when the revolution occurred because they were oligarchs who didn't like the idea of poor people not starving. Why aren't people running to Cuba? Economic circumstances, as well as the fact that the US severely limits travel to Cuba. The reason some Cubans come to the US is the same, economic circumstances. You can make more money in the US than in Cuba, so some people take that chance. Also, every society has people who don't like the status quo, so it isn't really surprising that some don't like it. Lastly, the US government gives out more visas to Cubans than any other nation on Earth; the US government gives amnesty to ANY Cuban who reaches American shores; there is more incentive for Cubans to come to America than any other country in the world, and yet relatively few Cubans attempt to flee. Think about that.
You're kidding, Right? Cause if you're not....
Cubans don't leave because Castro will kill them if they try. Speak to the cubans who don't live under the fear that Castro will kill them.They have to depise the dissedents or they're thrown into a gulag. "relativly few cubans attempt to flee" because Castro will throw them in prison if they try.

I trust the people who don't live in fear of Castro. They seem more reliable than the ones who live under fear of death, imprisonment, or harrasment.

[Knight of Cydonia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2006 01:12 am
Islam has not proven itself to be a religion of "peace" by any standards. Except the "peace" that comes with the death of your enemies.




wanna go to my country to see how peace is islam religion?

you only looked at the middle east islam, you're not notice the outer world like Indonesia that have all the citizens religion is Islam in the majority.

yeah the peace will come when all of you cappie's death.

[Guild-soicalist]

Intellectual47, did you know that "1984" was written by a Socialist.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2006 05:34 pm
Okay, I guess I'm going to have to refute these on their own.

Afghanistan: The Commie invasion did nothing?
Angola: The Commie's did as much there as we did.
Bosnia: Bosnia was screwed over by the Commie's way more than us
Cambodia:Do you deny the Khemer Rouge?
China: Again with the denial?
Chile: okay, we screwed up there. But we did give them an econmy worth being proud of. You guys use that as an excuse for the USSR
Cuba: I'm sure Communism did nothing there :rolleyes:
The DR: How is that our fault?
El Salvador: don't know enough about them to make a statement.
Greece: We affected them for the better.
Grenada: How did we screw them up?
Guam: see "Grenada"
Guatemala: They almost got elected to the security council, they're doing good.
Guyana: see "el Salvador"
Hawaii: see "Greece"
Haiti: see "DR"
Hondorus: see "Greece"
Iran: see "DR"
Iraq: they were screwed up before we messed with them
Panama: see "Greece"
Phillipines: see "Greece"
Puerto rico: see "Greece"
Poland:see "afghanistan", "Angola", or "Cambodia"
North Korea: see "cuba"
South Korea: see "Greece"
Kuwait: we saved them from Saddam
Laos: see "el Salvador", or maybe "Greece"
Nicaruagau: Our messing with them didn't change a thing
Mexico: They Love Us. We have an immigration problem with them
Samoa: little or no effect
Somalia: They screwed themselves up way more than we screwed them
Vietnam: see "Bosnia", or we tried to help them
Virgin Islands: see "Samoa"
Yugoslavia: see "Bosnia", "China", "Cuba", or "DR"

Might want to check if these countries are screwed before you post them. Where'd you get them?
The USSR intervened in Afghanistan because the Taliban, funded by the US, was trying to topple the non-fundamentalist government there. If the US hadn't funded the Taliban, things would have been much better for Afghanistan. However, you didn't address the US' involvement. Please do so.

Nelson Mandela has explicitly thanked Cuba and the Cuban people for what they did in Angola. The Cubans fought the apartheid forces, which was more than justified. Again, you didn't address the US' involvement. Please do so.

There wasn't an ethnic slaughter in Bosnia for so long because of the Communists. The US, on the other hand, bombed residential housing. Address the US' involvement.

Do you have any idea of what happened in Cambodia. The Khemer Rouge gained power precisely because the US invaded and left a vacuum in the nation. Had the US not invaded for no reason, the Khemer Rouge would probably not have taken control. You can thank Uncle Sam for allowing that to happen. Address the US' involvement.

We invaded China in the 19th century as well. Also, the Chinese told us not to come to the Yalu River, but we didn't listen, so they attacked. We were the aggressor in both cases. You didn't analyze the US' involvement.

We "screwed up"? Get a grip, we did far more than that. An "economy to be proud of"? That's pathetic, the economy dropped as fast as it grew, study history for a change.

What are you talking about? The Cuban revolution was a rebellion, not an invasion. Furthermore, the US invaded because they didn't like how Cuba wasn't its personal brothel and casino anymore. You are completely oblivious.

Maybe because we supported the Trijillo?

You don't know enough to make statement about any of these examples. However, since you admitted your ignorance this time, we supported the oligarchy of El Salvador (when about 16 white families owned almost all of the country's land) and opposed the popular revolution. The revolution gained some acheivements in spite of US meddling, and now regular people have access to doctors for a change (Uncle Sam didn't want that to happen).

We established a group of generals in Greece who shot people down in the streets. That's not "the better".

We invaded Grenada for no reason whatsoever. We had no justification for that invasion. None.

What does that have to do with what happened in the 1950's? Do you even know what happened there? The democratically elected president was overthrown by a RW coup (there was an attempt to cleanse Guatemala of the Maya "problem" by the RW government). Again, your ignorance is fully exposed.

Hawaii was "better"? The Queen wanted to help her people and not have her islands overrun by white colonists. The Americans created an racist oligarchy. You're clueless.

We've removed multiple (IIRC) presidents of Haiti. We invaded about a century ago and put in motion the crap that we see today.

RW death squads are "better"? Wrong.

We removed the elected Prime Minister of Iran and replaced him with the Shah. That is very much our fault.

Iraq wasn't messed up nearly as much as it is now. Anyone with half a brain can tell you that. How many car bombings happened before the invasion? How many families were gunned down in the streets?

Panama, Phillipines and Puerto Rico were surely not made better by what the US did.

Need I go on? What we've done in Mexico over 2 centuries is OK because people come to the US for jobs? What is that supposed to mean? Saying that Guatemala's "doing good" means that what we did to Arbenz Guzman in 1954 was OK? We tried to help Vietnam? You DO know that we supported Diem and didn't allow the elections to occur that were supposed to unify the country, right? Supporting an invasion of Nicaragua "didn't change a thing"? Either you are trying to sound dumb, or you just are.

It seems that you don't know what you're even making comments on. "See 'el Salvador', or maybe 'Greece'"? Which one is it? Don't give us a BS answer like that.

To be honest, you know absolutely nothing about these events, nor can you make a remotely accurate assesment of them. Your points are all insipid, incorrect and simply ignorant.

[Intellectual47]

It appears you're ignorance has grown since we last spoke.

What the hell do you think the Commie invasion of Afghanistan was? They took the Marxist leader because he wasn't Marxist enough.

Justified? You have two invading forces and one is justified? Justified by whose standards.

I must admit, police states are quite good at stopping ethnic genecides. Somehow that justifies how they screwed that country over.

The Khmer Rouge was evil thanks to us? That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard! Why is it you tend to ignore the good we do, the evil the Commies did, and instead focus on every insignifigant evil thing we have ever done? The Commies screwed Cambodia, not the US. Last I checked the Khmer Rouge was supported by CHina

I'm sure the great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution did nothing to hurt that country! Only 50 million people died. And they're Chinese, what do they matter? :rolleyes: :angry:

How does the mass imprisoning of thousands of people and the trampling of human rights not register on your radar?! The bay of Pigs invasion was because we knew something like the Missile Crisis would happen. And we were right.

Regrettably I need a little break from refuting you. Please see this link (http://www.wikipedia.com) and you see what history has to say.


Don't worry, I'll be back in case you don't read the link.

[manic expression]

And it seems you're just as much of a clueless idiot.

The USSR and the PDPA (Afghani Marxist government) had good relations. When the US started meddling in the country, the Soviets made a move to solidify the country. The cause of this was the US, don't ignore that.

Nelson Mandela's thanks qualifies one side as justified. The Cubans defended the Angolan people from the forces of Apartheid. Or do you support racist social policies?

Tito held the country together and fostered a beneficial time in the region's history. Compare that to what the US did and you find a clear contrast.

You can't comprehend a point, can you? The US invasion of Cambodia ALLOWED the Khmer Rouge to take control. Had it not been for what the US did (which caused many deaths for no reason in the first place), the possibility of the KR attaining power would have been exponentially lower. Don't ignore what happened.

What in the world does this have to do with the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution? Instead of dancing around reality and playing blind to the issues, address what the US did. Until you do so, you have no argument.

The Cuban Revolution did away with the oligarchy which enforced extreme poverty on the Cuban people and replaced it with a society without these ills. The average level of education went from 4th grade to 8th grade in a matter of a few years; it took Argentina the better part of a century to do that with capitalism (and then it crashed). THAT, not "human rights violations", is what the US didn't like: poor people not being poor. The revolution siezed foreign assests and gave them to the people who worked there, they ended imperialist injustice that needed to be ended. Uncle Sam didn't like this, so he invaded.

Oh, and the Cuban Missile Crisis happened precisely because the Bay of Pigs invasion. Why do you think the Cuban government was so eager to have a check against a US invasion? Because they had just experienced one not two years prior.

A link to wikipedia? Cute, but it only proves that you're as pompous as you are clueless. Try reading history, since you know nothing about it ("umm....see el salvador.....or angola....or...." :lol: ).

[Aeturnal Narcosis]

Well, actually they funded social projects like the Autobahn; they had full employment, and brought Germany out of a depression.

the nazis did make alot of progress... problem is, the racism, brainwashing, limitations to personal freedom, nationalism, etc outweigh all of the economic benefits. that, and "national socialism" only works to strengthen a capitalist economy, and thus essentially just strengthens the bourgeois.


Most good encyclopedias like Britannica are fairly objective about both Communism and fascism. World Book is pretty much shit and always has been.

yeah, but i got it for free, as a gift from my grandmother when i was 8... and alot of what lead me to communism came from world book... at least until i got the internet and took AP european history in highschool.


Especially if you are going to pick up an edition printed during the cold war and look up communism.

somehow, i doubt it has changed much since the end of the cccp

[marxist troglodytes]

What I didnt add to my commentary about leftists wanting the revolution handed to them on a silver platter is:
Leftists want an already functioning viable society from which to impose their marxist myopia because leftists know that for all their propaganda and dogma, communism is a miserable failure at producing anything.
Karl Marx's economics have been proven in practice to be wasteful, inefficient and only capable of creating shortages, scarcity, poverty and this general misery necessitates the statist terror to force the people into believing the lie that their pitiful existence is actually a ''paradise".


By the way, it seems that your posts do lack substance, for most of your last post was completely incoherent. Would you agree that it may take many tries to succeed at something? Yes or no? If your answer is yes, then your argument is rendered incorrect.

How many more times does socialist economics need to be proven wrong?? Leftists dismiss the terror states that implemented socialism as if socialism and tyranny were not correlated to each other, which clearly they were.
But how would leftists explain the deprivation, squalor, and destitution spawned by the abolition of private property and the free market?
Communist nations are parasites that live off of the charity of Western governments. The IMF , World Bank, UN funds are all in their vast majority sourced from the very capitalist nations that leftist beggars despise.
By 1989, a welfare mother in America received more money a month from the "belligerent, aggressive, imperialist, corrupt, greedy, self-serving, hateful, ignorant, unjust, unequal, inequitable, unfair, unfree, unsophisticated, etc" American government than a Soviet worker earned in an entire year.
Now who is evil and who is being exploited?



On the other hand, leftist policies have worked and have created better societies. Cuba has the best medical system in Latin America, and everyone has full and equal access to it; Cuba has a literacy rate which rates with the best western nations; Cuba's child mortality rates are considerably better than the US'; all Cubans have food, shelter and other necessities provided to them, no questions asked, while Vietnam veterans freeze to death under bridges in the US (and this is just one example of many). Take a gander at reality and maybe you'll get somewhere.

This is good for a laugh. Cuba before the communist calamity had the third or fourth highest per capita GDP in the Western Hemisphere. Now, under the dark shadow of Communist econimics, Cuba is about--it fluctuates--the third or fourth lowest per capita GDP in the Western Hemisphere.
Cuba before communism was a nation that attracted immigrants. Under communism Cuban people risk death on makeshift flotation devices to escape the piece of garbage "'workers paradise".
Its great that leftists amplify Cuban Communist Party propaganda about literacy rates, medical care, and now even mortality rates. These pieces of leftist agitprop are now ubiquitous leftist sanitizing of the very same Communist prison-states that they claim to disown. Why are leftists defending Cuba if in other instances they claim that Cuba's economy and government are "not communist at all"??? What evidence do leftists have to substantiate their parroting of communist propaganda about literacy rates, medical care etc.??
As the collapse of the Soviet bloc demonstrated by captured or smuggled communist govt documents, Communist countries lie like hell.
So which is it? Is Cuba not communist at all as sometimes leftists pretend to disown it, OR is Communist Cuba a utopia and model state?
Get your lies straight.

As for ''reality", lying leftist parlor-communist, go to Cuba and protest against the Castro government there so you can see what REAL oppression and suffering really is.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by marxist [email protected] 15, 2006 11:53 pm
Cuba before the communist calamity had the third or fourth highest per capita GDP in the Western Hemisphere.
Now, I think that qualifies as one of the worst cases of making things up I have ever seen. I am not going to defend everything Castro has done...but for God's sake.

Incidentally Cuba has the highest place on the Human development Index in the Caribbean, why do you think that is?

[marxist troglodytes]

The USSR intervened in Afghanistan because the Taliban, funded by the US, was trying to topple the non-fundamentalist government there. If the US hadn't funded the Taliban, things would have been much better for Afghanistan. However, you didn't address the US' involvement. Please do so.

Notice how there was no visible international leftist "anti-war" movement anywhere when the Soviet Union invaded Afganistan in 1979. But when America topples the Afghan Taliban, leftist hypocrites are furious.


Nelson Mandela has explicitly thanked Cuba and the Cuban people for what they did in Angola. The Cubans fought the apartheid forces, which was more than justified. Again, you didn't address the US' involvement. Please do so.

Nelson Mandela is a leftist with ties to the former Soviet Union. Comrade Mandela and comrade Castro have a lot in common. Cuban communists in Angola were there to help imprison the people of that country under a Castroite style prison-state.


There wasn't an ethnic slaughter in Bosnia for so long because of the Communists. The US, on the other hand, bombed residential housing. Address the US' involvement.

Even when it is indisputable that it is the communits carrying out the ethnic cleansing, leftists are still apologetic for them.
The US accidentally bombs the wrong targets and leftist charlatans attribute this to ''capitalism US imperialism evil blah blah blah". But when leftist military forces deliberately invaded Czechoslovakia or Hungary, leftist trash are silent.


Do you have any idea of what happened in Cambodia. The Khemer Rouge gained power precisely because the US invaded and left a vacuum in the nation. Had the US not invaded for no reason, the Khemer Rouge would probably not have taken control. You can thank Uncle Sam for allowing that to happen. Address the US' involvement.

The Khmer Rouge were communists supported and supportive of Communist North Vietnam. So if the Communist Khmer monsters were ''aided" to power by the US, then you leftist liars should be proud of the US. See? This argument is specious and leftist polemics are a farce. Pol-Pot postured as "anti-war'' during the Vietnam war Indo-chinese communist melee as much as American leftist protesters on the streets were.


We invaded China in the 19th century as well. Also, the Chinese told us not to come to the Yalu River, but we didn't listen, so they attacked. We were the aggressor in both cases. You didn't analyze the US' involvement.

China was never invaded by Western powers outright. This leftists is a putrid liar.
Chinese coastal cities were sacked or given to Western powers as concessions. The Chinese imperial state was never toppled by Western countries. And why are leftists shedding crocodile tears over IMPERIALIST China? Leftists are a fraud. The Korean War was started when the North Korean communists, endorsed by the Soviet Union and Red China, invaded the South. The Korean War to roll back the communist invasion was under the auspices of leftists' cherished UN. Yep, the Korean War against the communists was a UN mission!



What are you talking about? The Cuban revolution was a rebellion, not an invasion. Furthermore, the US invaded because they didn't like how Cuba wasn't its personal brothel and casino anymore. You are completely oblivious.

The cuban communist revolution was aided and sponsored by the Soviet Union.
Fidel Castro was a communist terrorist long before he launched his bid to imprison Cuba. Cuba was never anyones' brothel or casino before Castro. But after Castro, Cuba became the Soviet Union's vassal state. Some "liberation"...
Castro wanted to launch those nuclear missles from the "Cuban missle crisis" into American soil. In fact, some Soviet insiders say that Krushchev pulled the missles out because Castro was so hell-bent and trigger happy to start a nuclear holocaust.


We established a group of generals in Greece who shot people down in the streets. That's not "the better".
The US helped the Greek people defeat the Greek Communist Party's war to drag Greece under the yoke of Soviet imperialism. The Greek Communist Party openly declared their intentions to turn Greece into a Soviet satellite state.


We invaded Grenada for no reason whatsoever. We had no justification for that invasion. None.

The US was petitioned by neighboring Carribean islands to intervene in Grenada where a pack of Communists had sacked the government--even setting up a Soviet style politburo--and were in the midst of building an airport capable of handling Soviet heavy bombers. No reason , huh?




Hawaii was "better"? The Queen wanted to help her people and not have her islands overrun by white colonists. The Americans created an racist oligarchy. You're clueless.

Hawaii under the "Queen" was precisely the kind of reactionary feudal imperialist society that leftist hypocrites pretend to condemn when the situation suits them.
Included as a full-fledged American state, Hawaii is a first world economy, democracy, and actually close to being a ''paradise"--what leftist trash claim communist gulags are.



We removed the elected Prime Minister of Iran and replaced him with the Shah. That is very much our fault.

Leftists endorsed the Islamo-fascist revolution that toppled the Shah. Today that islamic terror theocracy building nuclear missles to inflict genocide and its stated purpose of "wiping Israel (a UN member state) off the map" is the Left's legacy.



Iraq wasn't messed up nearly as much as it is now. Anyone with half a brain can tell you that. How many car bombings happened before the invasion? How many families were gunned down in the streets?

Because of the American toppling of the fascist dictator Sadam, Iraqis held three succesful elections, ratified a constitution, and elected more than 88 Iraqi women to parliament. A feat seen nowhere else in the male-chauvinist arab muslim world.
Aren't lefists supposed to be feminists?
Notice how islamic terrorists never attacked Sadam's regime... see?
Why would there need to be car bombings and families gunned down in the streets when Sadam's Gestapo did the torturing, rape-rooms, maiming, and killing...?
No islamo-fascist terrorist ever attacked Sadam's regime, but when Sadam is toppled and the US ushers in a popularly elected democratic government, the islamo-fascists go ballistic.



Panama, Phillipines and Puerto Rico were surely not made better by what the US did.

If it wasnt for the US, Puerto Rico would be another third world welfare case like Haiti--another country ruined by marxist thugs. And because of the absence of the US , Panama and the Phillipines are just that: third world countries.



Need I go on? What we've done in Mexico over 2 centuries is OK because people come to the US for jobs? What is that supposed to mean? Saying that Guatemala's "doing good" means that what we did to Arbenz Guzman in 1954 was OK? We tried to help Vietnam? You DO know that we supported Diem and didn't allow the elections to occur that were supposed to unify the country, right? Supporting an invasion of Nicaragua "didn't change a thing"? Either you are trying to sound dumb, or you just are.


If America is so exploitative and racist, then why do Mexicans sneak across the border by the millions? Notice how there are no Mexicans hopping into homemade rafts trying to emigrate to Cuba.
Leftists opposed America's involvement in Vietnam not because leftists are merely "anti-war" , but because leftists wanted the North Vietnamese Communist invasion of the South to succeed.
The US never thwarted any election anywhere. Leftist lies are pathetic.
It was Ho Chi Minh's communist North that refused to hold the UN mandated elections in the part of the country his communist monsters had already impounded. Leftists dont ever complain about that missing election.
America never supported the Soviet and Cuban aided Sandinistas terrorist invasion of Nicaragua.
The Sandinistas were KGB trained and organized terrorists since their inception.
Read my post about Nicaragua that you leftists dumped in the "trash can".
If its not there anymore, I'll repost it.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by marxist [email protected] 16, 2006 12:51 am
Nelson Mandela is a leftist with ties to the former Soviet Union. Comrade Mandela and comrade Castro have a lot in common. Cuban communists in Angola were there to help imprison the people of that country under a Castroite style prison-state.

You can't be serious can you? Are you going to defend Apartheid now? It was justified after all as keeping South Africa the "bukwark against Communism"

[marxist troglodytes]

You can't be serious can you? Are you going to defend Apartheid now? It was justified after all as keeping South Africa the "bukwark against Communism"

Is that all you got? Had the racist apartheid regime been communist then that regime would of been exempt from leftist subversion. And Mandela would have had to cooperate with that racist power structure, or the Left would have turned on Mandela with a fury. Just as happened during the Hitler-Stalin pact (Ribbentropp-Molotov Pact), where Western leftists were given marching orders from Moscow to refrain from any anti-Nazi activism. (while the pact lasted)
Leftists do not give a rat's ass about opposing racism.
"Racism" is merely an immediate pretext to co-sign the left's agenda to destroy free markets and liberal democracies. If a black person is decidedly anti-leftist, then that black person is ostracized by the left that claims to be "anti-racist" in the absolute. Leftists are a fraud.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by marxist [email protected] 15, 2006 11:53 pm
What I didnt add to my commentary about leftists wanting the revolution handed to them on a silver platter is:
Leftists want an already functioning viable society from which to impose their marxist myopia because leftists know that for all their propaganda and dogma, communism is a miserable failure at producing anything.
Karl Marx's economics have been proven in practice to be wasteful, inefficient and only capable of creating shortages, scarcity, poverty and this general misery necessitates the statist terror to force the people into believing the lie that their pitiful existence is actually a ''paradise".


By the way, it seems that your posts do lack substance, for most of your last post was completely incoherent. Would you agree that it may take many tries to succeed at something? Yes or no? If your answer is yes, then your argument is rendered incorrect.

How many more times does socialist economics need to be proven wrong?? Leftists dismiss the terror states that implemented socialism as if socialism and tyranny were not correlated to each other, which clearly they were.
But how would leftists explain the deprivation, squalor, and destitution spawned by the abolition of private property and the free market?
Communist nations are parasites that live off of the charity of Western governments. The IMF , World Bank, UN funds are all in their vast majority sourced from the very capitalist nations that leftist beggars despise.
By 1989, a welfare mother in America received more money a month from the "belligerent, aggressive, imperialist, corrupt, greedy, self-serving, hateful, ignorant, unjust, unequal, inequitable, unfair, unfree, unsophisticated, etc" American government than a Soviet worker earned in an entire year.
Now who is evil and who is being exploited?



On the other hand, leftist policies have worked and have created better societies. Cuba has the best medical system in Latin America, and everyone has full and equal access to it; Cuba has a literacy rate which rates with the best western nations; Cuba's child mortality rates are considerably better than the US'; all Cubans have food, shelter and other necessities provided to them, no questions asked, while Vietnam veterans freeze to death under bridges in the US (and this is just one example of many). Take a gander at reality and maybe you'll get somewhere.

This is good for a laugh. Cuba before the communist calamity had the third or fourth highest per capita GDP in the Western Hemisphere. Now, under the dark shadow of Communist econimics, Cuba is about--it fluctuates--the third or fourth lowest per capita GDP in the Western Hemisphere.
Cuba before communism was a nation that attracted immigrants. Under communism Cuban people risk death on makeshift flotation devices to escape the piece of garbage "'workers paradise".
Its great that leftists amplify Cuban Communist Party propaganda about literacy rates, medical care, and now even mortality rates. These pieces of leftist agitprop are now ubiquitous leftist sanitizing of the very same Communist prison-states that they claim to disown. Why are leftists defending Cuba if in other instances they claim that Cuba's economy and government are "not communist at all"??? What evidence do leftists have to substantiate their parroting of communist propaganda about literacy rates, medical care etc.??
As the collapse of the Soviet bloc demonstrated by captured or smuggled communist govt documents, Communist countries lie like hell.
So which is it? Is Cuba not communist at all as sometimes leftists pretend to disown it, OR is Communist Cuba a utopia and model state?
Get your lies straight.

As for ''reality", lying leftist parlor-communist, go to Cuba and protest against the Castro government there so you can see what REAL oppression and suffering really is.
Marx's economics revolved around the notion that capitalism would develop, creating a society that could become Communist. Without the development of capitalism, communism is an impossibility. Try to wrap your head around that.

And Marxist-Leninist economics have worked in Cuba, Kerala and elsewhere; collectivisation was a great success in Spain and Paris; Nicaragua improved itself through Marxist economics; I could go on. As a matter of fact, Kerala has recently been setting production records for India. Inefficient? Hardly. Capitalism creates poor people; communism creates equity and justice.

How many more times does socialism need to succeed? Leftists dismiss states which claim to be leftist, but are not, because they should do so. Let me ask you a question: since Kim Jong-Il calls his country "democratic", do people who support democracy need to defend it? Of course not, and the same goes for leftists. Like I've said before, actions speak louder than offically proclaimed ideologies.

The free market, not socialism, has caused those ills. Look at the exploitation of workers done under "free trade", much less the domestic injustice that is more than clear. Socialism has alleviated these unending troubles; even the late USSR, in spite of all its shortcomings, had a better life expectancy rate than the countries that followed. In Russia, people in the cities were forced to grow food to survive; as of 1999, there were (and probably still are) more homeless children on the streets than after WWII. Those are the "blessings" of the free-market: people dying younger, people doing whatever they can to survive, children on the streets; in other words: infinite injustice.

Communist nations seek to provide a better life and a brighter future for their people. Sometimes they succeed, sometimes their efforts are destroyed by capitalist aggression.

And really, your misled views are all too exposed. If x makes $20/hour while y makes $1/hour, x makes more than y. However, if x has to use that higher wage to pay for food, housing, clothes and more, x's salary is rendered meaningless in light of x's actual living conditions and money available to x. The point is that a higher income has to be viewed in light of the household's expenses, which would obviously be higher in a capitalist country. Using misleading figures isn't going to help you here.

You laugh in ignorance. Get a clue: Cuba was unbelievably unequal. There were VERY rich people in Cuba, and yet most of the population lived in abject poverty, if they were lucky. The money from American tourism and foreign investment was very profitable, but who got all that money? It wasn't the vast majority of the Cuban people, that's for sure.

Today, instead of the despicable poverty, Cuba has a medical system that rivals western nations, literacy rates that are on par with the west, better infant mortality rates than the US, clothing and shelter and food for everyone (you can't say that about the US) and more. The revolution has brought justice and equity to Cuba, and while every Cuban has access to excellent medical care, Vietnam veterans freeze to death under bridges in the US. EVEN WITH the US embargoes (which severely limit Cuba's ability to trade), Cuba provides this and more to its people, not to mention sending an amazing number of doctors abroad to serve those in poverty (most of whom don't have medical care, thanks to capitalism).

On emigration, the US gives more visas to Cuba than any other nation on Earth. The US grants amnesty to ANY Cuban who reaches US shores. However, very few Cubans actually attempt to flee the country, which is a testament to the success of Cuba and its people.

Where, exactly, did I "claim that Cuba's economy and government are 'not communist at all'"? Let me help you out: I didn't. Don't put words in my mouth, because it is dishonest and stupid. Once again, your arguments are based on delusion and idiocy.

By the way, cite your numbers.

I've given the reality on Cuba. Address it instead of dancing around the facts.

Wait, people aren't allowed to protest? What, then, is this?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4569981.stm
http://images.google.com/images?svnum=10&h...uba&btnG=Search (http://images.google.com/images?svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&q=ladies+in+white+cuba&btnG=Search)

Translation: you're wrong.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by marxist [email protected] 16, 2006 12:51 am

The USSR intervened in Afghanistan because the Taliban, funded by the US, was trying to topple the non-fundamentalist government there. If the US hadn't funded the Taliban, things would have been much better for Afghanistan. However, you didn't address the US' involvement. Please do so.

Notice how there was no visible international leftist "anti-war" movement anywhere when the Soviet Union invaded Afganistan in 1979. But when America topples the Afghan Taliban, leftist hypocrites are furious.


Nelson Mandela has explicitly thanked Cuba and the Cuban people for what they did in Angola. The Cubans fought the apartheid forces, which was more than justified. Again, you didn't address the US' involvement. Please do so.

Nelson Mandela is a leftist with ties to the former Soviet Union. Comrade Mandela and comrade Castro have a lot in common. Cuban communists in Angola were there to help imprison the people of that country under a Castroite style prison-state.


There wasn't an ethnic slaughter in Bosnia for so long because of the Communists. The US, on the other hand, bombed residential housing. Address the US' involvement.

Even when it is indisputable that it is the communits carrying out the ethnic cleansing, leftists are still apologetic for them.
The US accidentally bombs the wrong targets and leftist charlatans attribute this to ''capitalism US imperialism evil blah blah blah". But when leftist military forces deliberately invaded Czechoslovakia or Hungary, leftist trash are silent.


Do you have any idea of what happened in Cambodia. The Khemer Rouge gained power precisely because the US invaded and left a vacuum in the nation. Had the US not invaded for no reason, the Khemer Rouge would probably not have taken control. You can thank Uncle Sam for allowing that to happen. Address the US' involvement.

The Khmer Rouge were communists supported and supportive of Communist North Vietnam. So if the Communist Khmer monsters were ''aided" to power by the US, then you leftist liars should be proud of the US. See? This argument is specious and leftist polemics are a farce. Pol-Pot postured as "anti-war'' during the Vietnam war Indo-chinese communist melee as much as American leftist protesters on the streets were.


We invaded China in the 19th century as well. Also, the Chinese told us not to come to the Yalu River, but we didn't listen, so they attacked. We were the aggressor in both cases. You didn't analyze the US' involvement.

China was never invaded by Western powers outright. This leftists is a putrid liar.
Chinese coastal cities were sacked or given to Western powers as concessions. The Chinese imperial state was never toppled by Western countries. And why are leftists shedding crocodile tears over IMPERIALIST China? Leftists are a fraud. The Korean War was started when the North Korean communists, endorsed by the Soviet Union and Red China, invaded the South. The Korean War to roll back the communist invasion was under the auspices of leftists' cherished UN. Yep, the Korean War against the communists was a UN mission!



What are you talking about? The Cuban revolution was a rebellion, not an invasion. Furthermore, the US invaded because they didn't like how Cuba wasn't its personal brothel and casino anymore. You are completely oblivious.

The cuban communist revolution was aided and sponsored by the Soviet Union.
Fidel Castro was a communist terrorist long before he launched his bid to imprison Cuba. Cuba was never anyones' brothel or casino before Castro. But after Castro, Cuba became the Soviet Union's vassal state. Some "liberation"...
Castro wanted to launch those nuclear missles from the "Cuban missle crisis" into American soil. In fact, some Soviet insiders say that Krushchev pulled the missles out because Castro was so hell-bent and trigger happy to start a nuclear holocaust.


We established a group of generals in Greece who shot people down in the streets. That's not "the better".
The US helped the Greek people defeat the Greek Communist Party's war to drag Greece under the yoke of Soviet imperialism. The Greek Communist Party openly declared their intentions to turn Greece into a Soviet satellite state.


We invaded Grenada for no reason whatsoever. We had no justification for that invasion. None.

The US was petitioned by neighboring Carribean islands to intervene in Grenada where a pack of Communists had sacked the government--even setting up a Soviet style politburo--and were in the midst of building an airport capable of handling Soviet heavy bombers. No reason , huh?




Hawaii was "better"? The Queen wanted to help her people and not have her islands overrun by white colonists. The Americans created an racist oligarchy. You're clueless.

Hawaii under the "Queen" was precisely the kind of reactionary feudal imperialist society that leftist hypocrites pretend to condemn when the situation suits them.
Included as a full-fledged American state, Hawaii is a first world economy, democracy, and actually close to being a ''paradise"--what leftist trash claim communist gulags are.



We removed the elected Prime Minister of Iran and replaced him with the Shah. That is very much our fault.

Leftists endorsed the Islamo-fascist revolution that toppled the Shah. Today that islamic terror theocracy building nuclear missles to inflict genocide and its stated purpose of "wiping Israel (a UN member state) off the map" is the Left's legacy.



Iraq wasn't messed up nearly as much as it is now. Anyone with half a brain can tell you that. How many car bombings happened before the invasion? How many families were gunned down in the streets?

Because of the American toppling of the fascist dictator Sadam, Iraqis held three succesful elections, ratified a constitution, and elected more than 88 Iraqi women to parliament. A feat seen nowhere else in the male-chauvinist arab muslim world.
Aren't lefists supposed to be feminists?
Notice how islamic terrorists never attacked Sadam's regime... see?
Why would there need to be car bombings and families gunned down in the streets when Sadam's Gestapo did the torturing, rape-rooms, maiming, and killing...?
No islamo-fascist terrorist ever attacked Sadam's regime, but when Sadam is toppled and the US ushers in a popularly elected democratic government, the islamo-fascists go ballistic.



Panama, Phillipines and Puerto Rico were surely not made better by what the US did.

If it wasnt for the US, Puerto Rico would be another third world welfare case like Haiti--another country ruined by marxist thugs. And because of the absence of the US , Panama and the Phillipines are just that: third world countries.



Need I go on? What we've done in Mexico over 2 centuries is OK because people come to the US for jobs? What is that supposed to mean? Saying that Guatemala's "doing good" means that what we did to Arbenz Guzman in 1954 was OK? We tried to help Vietnam? You DO know that we supported Diem and didn't allow the elections to occur that were supposed to unify the country, right? Supporting an invasion of Nicaragua "didn't change a thing"? Either you are trying to sound dumb, or you just are.


If America is so exploitative and racist, then why do Mexicans sneak across the border by the millions? Notice how there are no Mexicans hopping into homemade rafts trying to emigrate to Cuba.
Leftists opposed America's involvement in Vietnam not because leftists are merely "anti-war" , but because leftists wanted the North Vietnamese Communist invasion of the South to succeed.
The US never thwarted any election anywhere. Leftist lies are pathetic.
It was Ho Chi Minh's communist North that refused to hold the UN mandated elections in the part of the country his communist monsters had already impounded. Leftists dont ever complain about that missing election.
America never supported the Soviet and Cuban aided Sandinistas terrorist invasion of Nicaragua.
The Sandinistas were KGB trained and organized terrorists since their inception.
Read my post about Nicaragua that you leftists dumped in the "trash can".
If its not there anymore, I'll repost it.
Notice how you have no perspective. Leftists didn't like how the US invaded a country and toppled a government they installed. The USSR was trying to stop the Taliban from getting in power.

Nelson Mandela has done far more for the people of Africa than the US has ever attempted to do. Nelson Mandela fought against racism and injustice, and he recognizes Cuba's contribution to this struggle. You, on the other hand, don't know the first thing about the situation.

The Cubans were in Angola to fight the pro-apartheid forces. The US supported apartheid. Once again, communism fights for justice while capitalism defends injustice.

Yeah, I really apologized for the Khmer Rouge...except I didn't. Don't put words in my mouth. The fact is that the US allowed the KR to take power. Deal with that fact.

Oh, and the USSR's actions in Czechoslovakia and Hungary drove many on the left away from supporting Moscow. Do a little research.

So you're telling us who we're supposed to like and support? Nice try, but that's the worst argument I've ever heard. The Khmer Rouge have about as much to do with communism as Kim Jong-Il has to do with democracy. Next issue.

China was never invaded? Care to talk about the Opium Wars? How about the western response to the Boxer Rebellion? Address those events. No, the Qing Dynasty wasn't toppled until 1911 (IIRC) by Chinese forces, but this doesn't negate the western invasions. And the reason I brought it up is because it shows the nature of American imperialism (different from the imperialism of China, and if you try to equate the two, you are clueless).

Once the US crossed the 38th parallel, it ceased to be a defensive war in Korea. Furthermore, the US didn't heed China's request to NOT go to the Yalu River. Citing these facts is a "fraud"? Not really. Better luck next time.

The Cuban revolution wasn't declared Marxist-Leninist until after the victory. They recieved significant aid then.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban-Soviet_..._the_revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban-Soviet_relations#After_the_revolution)
So, basically, you're wrong, again.

Your next paragraph is about as insipid and idiotic as I could ever envision. "Bid to imprison Cuba"? "Terrorist"? "Vassal state"? Pure stupidity.

Anyway, Cuba WAS a place where Americans went to gamble and "live it up". It was unbelievably poor, and yet there was a great deal of wealth there. Prostitution was rampant. This all changed after the revolution (especially prostitution, which was illegalized, much to the chagrin of Uncle Sam).

Cuba wanted nuclear weapons because the US was so hell-bent on invasion. The Bay of Pigs was indicative of that. They wanted to check US aggression.

When the POWs of the Bay of Pigs were ransomed back to the US, one of the things the revolutionary government asked for were MEDICAL SUPPLIES. How does this square with your criticisms? Let me give you a hint: it doesn't, because you're wrong.

I don't care who petitioned us, we invaded for no reason. There was no reason to invade. An airport? Oh, heavens no! Saint Reagan save me, they have an AIRPORT! :lol: :lol: :lol:

No, Marx did not condemn pre-capitalist societies such as Hawaii, for the existed under completely different circumstances. The Queen was trying to return power to her people instead of the whites. Between racist imperialism and a fair monarch, I'll take the monarch every day and twice on Sunday. What Hawaii is now has nothing to do with the aggression heaped upon it a century ago. Deal with the issue.

:lol: Leftists supported the democratically elected government that was toppled BY the US. What toppled the Shah was the product of US aggression and imperialism. It's not the left's legacy, it's the US'.

Because of the American invasion, hundreds of thousands of people are dead, the people live in fear and without basic services that existed before the US' misadventure. What have the elections and constitution changed? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Merely masturbation for idiots like yourself. The US military still imposes itself upon the Iraqi people; the Iraqis, both those in office and the general populace, want us gone, and yet we stay. Some "democracy" for you.

If you knew ANYTHING about Iraqi history, you'd know that the lot of women in Iraq has been quite good for around half a century. Iraq was never blatantly oppressive toward women, until now. Honor killings are more common than ever (you do know what that is, right?), and "misery gangs" roam the streets raping women at random. Women cannot leave their houses without strict covering, something that NEVER happened before the invasion. The conditions for women in Iraq have deteriorated very badly because of the invasion.

The reason there are bombings in Iraq is because WE INVADED. Why the f*ck are you talking about Islamic fundamentalists and Saddam? That has nothing to do with this. There are insurgent attacks because the US invaded, and there is a surge of fundamentalism because people are trying to grasp to some past (that never really existed). This menacing spectre of "islamo fascists" isn't all that relavent to the big picture.

Saddam is like 20 other dictators throughout the world, many of whom are supported by the US (as in Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and others). The people of Iraq weren't dying at a disgusting rate, the people of Iraq didn't have to deal with bombings and US bullets, the people of Iraq didn't have a mere few hours of electricity, the people of Iraq didn't have this despicable situation they now face BECAUSE OF THE US.

Haiti is ruled by Marxists? News to me! :lol: You're just making sh*t up now, aren't you?

Latin Americans (not just Mexicans, only stupid, ignorant idiots think that only Mexicans come over, like yourself) come to the US for economic reasons. Making $10/day is a good wage in Latin America, so getting $4/hour is great. They think they can make a better living, and they can. However, if you're saying that America is good because we have better standards of living than Mexico or El Salvador, you're pathetic.

And no, Mexicans don't flee to Cuba, because it comes down to the money you can make and send home, not the quality of the society. If they did leave for the latter, you can bet the family farm that they'd head for Cuba.

Leftists supported the Vietnamese people's right to self-determination. Diem was an American tool who, with the support of the US, REFUSED TO TAKE PART IN ELECTIONS because he and the US KNEW the communists were more popular. I guess capitalists have a problem with people choosing the government they want instead of the government Uncle Sam wants to force upon them.

"However, the Diem government refused to enter into negotiations to hold the stipulated elections, encouraged by U.S. unwillingness to allow a certain communist victory in an all-Vietnam election."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War#T...ra.2C_1955-1963 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War#The_Diem_Era.2C_1955-1963)

What were you saying?

No, leftists don't complain about things that never happened.

The Sandinistas helped the Nicaraguan people instead of rich businessmen. That is what drew the ire of the US. They didn't invade, and logically could not, since they were from Nicaragua. Are you even reading the sh*t you write?

I'm beginning to think you're just someone who wants to write ridiculous crap. Nicaragua was "invaded" by the Sandinistas? What? That makes NO SENSE.

In all honesty, either you're joking, or you're just unbelievably stupid. I'm reserving the right to stop responding to your bullshit posts.

[CrazyModerate]

Originally posted by Guild-[email protected] 13, 2006 06:31 pm
To all anti-communists.

Do you know just how bored I get when you start repeating "history has proved communism wrong". I have been a communist for half a year now, if I got $1.50 for every time someone mindlessly repeats the disinformation from capitalist history books, newspapers, and films. I would be one mother****ing capitalist.
Oh, communism sure has succeeded. Now go move to Cuba to experience the joys of it. Don't worry, all Capitalists, religous minorities, and other deviants are taken to prison or are shot in the back of the head.

[marxist troglodytes]

B][b]And Marxist-Leninist economics have worked in Cuba, Kerala and elsewhere; collectivisation was a great success in Spain and Paris; Nicaragua improved itself through Marxist economics; I could go on. As a matter of fact, Kerala has recently been setting production records for India. Inefficient? Hardly. Capitalism creates poor people; communism creates equity and justice.
Cuban people cannot vote, have no religious freedom, have no freedom of expression, no civil rights, no political freedom, no human rights, no freedom to travel, no freedom of association: in short communist Cuba actually fits the leftist caricature of a "capitalist evil oppressive exploitative" nation.
Collectivization in Spain and Paris? Spain and Paris may be nanny welfare-states, but Stalinist gulag collectivization hasnt fallen on those people--yet.
Capitalist countries have the highest per capita GDP's, largest middle classes, most productive economies; and Western capitalist countries are the most free, tolerant open societies the world has ever seen.
People living in communist slavery are owned by their communist masters like cattle.
Notice how there are no American families desperately or otherwise hopping onto pieces of driftwood to emigrate to the communist dungeon Cuba.
Instead, its Cubans jumping in the water to escape their communist nightmare.
People in Cuba deliberately infect themselves with AIDS in order to be quarantined in Cuban concentration camps where they are left to their own devices--free of communist interference. wow...a "workers paradise"....


How many more times does socialism need to succeed? Leftists dismiss states which claim to be leftist, but are not, because they should do so. Let me ask you a question: since Kim Jong-Il calls his country "democratic", do people who support democracy need to defend it? Of course not, and the same goes for leftists. Like I've said before, actions speak louder than offically proclaimed ideologies.
Yeah, the USSR "succeeded" so much that it no longer exists. Wow....
Even Communist China admits that socialist economics are a failure.
China implements capitalist economics in certain enclaves in order to build a real economy. If communism is so "successful" as you claim, then why are the communist Chinese giving capitalism such an incredible advertisement? Notice how there are NO capitalist countries anywhere using marxist economics in special "economic zones"...
Kim Jong Il is a communist thug in Stalin's image, in other words he is your comrade. Castro also claims that Cuba has "democracy".
You claim Castro is popularly supported and yet Castro has never run in, or won an election in his life.

The free market, not socialism, has caused those ills. Look at the exploitation of workers done under "free trade", much less the domestic injustice that is more than clear. Socialism has alleviated these unending troubles; even the late USSR, in spite of all its shortcomings, had a better life expectancy rate than the countries that followed. In Russia, people in the cities were forced to grow food to survive; as of 1999, there were (and probably still are) more homeless children on the streets than after WWII. Those are the "blessings" of the free-market: people dying younger, people doing whatever they can to survive, children on the streets; in other words: infinite injustice.
What "free trade" are you talking about? If its NAFTA, I am of the opinion that NAFTA benefits Third World Mexico while ruining the U.S.'s manufacturing industries and drains American jobs.
Even so, American workers have more freedom and civil/human rights plus make more a month than a Cuban, North Korean, Chinese, Vietnamese, Nicaragua, Venezuelan, Zimbabwe(an) worker makes in two or three years.
If you absurdly discount wages or salaries, then what's your excuse for people living in leftist hell-holes having none of the freeedoms and human rights that the most humble American enjoys?
If it were up to leftist trash like you, those American vietnam-vets would still be rotting in Vietnamese communist prison cells enduring torture while you leftist trash deny that any torture is taking place. Your crocodile tears shed for American vets is obscene.
Homeless children in Russia? Russia is a corrupt kleptocracy run by an ex-KGB henchman. Vladimir Putin learned his trade under the auspices of the communist USSR's terror apparatus. Russia is one giant Mafia cesspool and the Russian nationalist "ex-communist" elite are the mafia-politburo..
Communists murdered more than 25 million Russians during the USSR's collectivization of the countryside farms only to create shortages, famine and pestlilence. Communists murdered more than 100 million people in the 20th century and caused the starvation of tens of millions more. Russia was a failure under communism, and Russia is a mess under the ex-communist cadres.

Communist nations seek to provide a better life and a brighter future for their people. Sometimes they succeed, sometimes their efforts are destroyed by capitalist aggression.
Communists use the pretext of "provide a better life and a brighter future for their people" to impound large swaths of humanity in their communist gulags.
But lets substantiate your rhetoric, which communist nations have failed?
It was communist agression that invaded South Vietnam, South Korea, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Central Asia, Nicaragua,
Afghanistan, and Hungary to name just a few.


And really, your misled views are all too exposed. If x makes $20/hour while y makes $1/hour, x makes more than y. However, if x has to use that higher wage to pay for food, housing, clothes and more, x's salary is rendered meaningless in light of x's actual living conditions and money available to x. The point is that a higher income has to be viewed in light of the household's expenses, which would obviously be higher in a capitalist country. Using misleading figures isn't going to help you here.
Not only do communism's captives make less money, but they have less choice, less quality, and less period of things to buy.
People in Cuba have food rationing in peacetime. Cubans have to wait in line for hours for mundane things like cooking oil. ooohhh woowww a "workers paradise", right?
Not to mention that serfs in communist countries have no freedom of speech, no freedom of association, no civil rights, no human rights, no religious freedom, no freedom to travel, no freedom to vote in free and fair elections, or no legal recourse to an autonomous non-politicized court system.
In all communist dungeon-states, the courts are merely appendages of the communist party

You laugh in ignorance. Get a clue: Cuba was unbelievably unequal. There were VERY rich people in Cuba, and yet most of the population lived in abject poverty, if they were lucky. The money from American tourism and foreign investment was very profitable, but who got all that money? It wasn't the vast majority of the Cuban people, that's for sure.
Communist Cuba is exponentially more oppressive and brutal than pre-Castro Cuba ever was.
Communist Cuba kills and imprisons political dissidents in more proportion
than Nazi Germany did to their own Germans. Spin that around your head leftist troll.
Every leftist revolution state is exponentially more hideous savage and brutal than the one that preceded it.

Today, instead of the despicable poverty, Cuba has a medical system that rivals western nations, literacy rates that are on par with the west, better infant mortality rates than the US, clothing and shelter and food for everyone (you can't say that about the US) and more. The revolution has brought justice and equity to Cuba, and while every Cuban has access to excellent medical care, Vietnam veterans freeze to death under bridges in the US. EVEN WITH the US embargoes (which severely limit Cuba's ability to trade), Cuba provides this and more to its people, not to mention sending an amazing number of doctors abroad to serve those in poverty (most of whom don't have medical care, thanks to capitalism).
Right, the ubiquitous communist propaganda about "literacy rates and medical care". Leftists use these communist cliches to defend ALL communist dungeons.
Leftists are so morally bankrupt that all they can do is amplify communist propaganda about "literacy rates/ medical care" over and over again like marxian incantations.
What evidence do you have that any of those claims are true??
Leftists belive Fidel Castro's propaganda ministry's lies before they are even written.
Communist countries lie like crazy and leftists are happy to parade their train of lies.
Cuba sends drugs, arms, terrorists, and soldiers to countries it wants to place under the communist yoke. Ignorant, sub-standard, politically fanatical Cuban doctors are the only elements of this communist subversion that leftists will publicly acknowledge.
Cuba is one of the poorest countries in the Western Hemisphere where its people risk death on the high seas to escape the communist prison-state.
Leftists claim that the source of all evil and exploitation is American "economic imperialism". And as many leftists have argued--leftists like Noam Chomsky--only by a nation ''liberating'' themselves from the ''capitalist'' sphere can they achieve utopia. Leftists claim that Fidel Castro and the rest of his henchmen have "liberated" Cuba from capitalism.
So what do leftists demand with a rabid passion? That the "evil imperialist capitalist monster" America conduct DIRECT TRADE WITH "LIBERATED" CUBA!! :lol: :lol: :lol:
If commmunist dungeons like Cuba are supposedly "workers paradises" precisely because they have rejected American "economic imperialism", then why do leftist charlatans demand that America remove the embargo that supposedly would be a bulwark against this purported American "economic imperialism".
Leftists are so mendacious, intellectually bankrupt, and rabid that they cannot even smell the putrid odors of their CONTRADICTIONS.
Sure, all nations need trade, but leftist trash have already declared "capitalist" trade to be an "atrocity".
Please, leftist trash, get your lies straight or throw your communist creed in the garbage where it belongs already.
Read that article on the Cuban "demonstrations" to see the oppressive fascist action Castro's goons took to thwart the foreign press and its own people for that matter.
.... such fascist repression oooohh aaahhh a "workers paradise", huh?

[manic expression]

marxist troglodytes, I don't know why I'm even responding to your drivel, since it is so devoid of intelligence. I'll make it quick.

The Cuban people can vote. This is a fact. They have religious freedom (church-going Christians can even join the Communist Party), civil rights, political freedom (anti-Castro protests have occurred in Havana without any roundups or the like) and more. These are all facts.

Spain collectivized land to great effect, production rose exponentially.

Paris was a fully-fledged commune for quite awhile. This was effective until its fall.

You didn't even address my example of Kerala, something which I specified. Probably because you don't have the slightest clue of what I'm talking about, as usual.

The USSR provided a far better standard of living than what came after it. This is a fact. Check the stats.

You didn't even come close to addressing my point. North Korea claims to be "democratic", does this mean people who support democracy must support it? Answer the question.

I said "free market", there's a difference. Of course, you don't understand it.

Nicargua was invaded? What? Anyway, no, they were not invaded in the same manner. South Vietnam refused to take part in unification years before and allied with imperialists. Eastern Europe was invaded because Nazi Germany invaded the USSR. The US caused the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

If you really think that Batista's Cuba is better than post-revolution Cuba, you're just beyond ignorant. Look at the statistics, look at the facts.

That's all for now.

[Knight of Cydonia]

Originally posted by manic [email protected] 30, 2006 01:02 pm
The US caused the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.


i'm not intend to getting involve with your debates between you and marxist troglodytes.i'm just curious about that Afghanistan Invasion.do you have any link?

[manic expression]

Originally posted by knight of cydonia+December 30, 2006 12:26 pm--> (knight of cydonia @ December 30, 2006 12:26 pm)
manic [email protected] 30, 2006 01:02 pm
The US caused the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.


i'm not intend to getting involve with your debates between you and marxist troglodytes.i'm just curious about that Afghanistan Invasion.do you have any link? [/b]
The US was interfering with the secular government in Afghanistan, and they were baiting the USSR.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_in...ons_during_1979 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_in_Afghanistan#U.S._aid_to_anti-communist_factions_during_1979)