hillary clinton [Archive]

Tatarin

22nd November 2007, 23:25

would you guys consider hillary a good 2008 candidate?

If anyone should decide to vote here, it would be for the Socialist Party or another party in the US. Hillary is not even a socialist - she may have been left-leaning in hear youth - but I doubt she even knows about class struggle.

In any case, Hillary would probably be better than any Republican candidate, like Giuliani.

she claims she wants to strengthen the middle class, but only by opening new jobs with better pay..

Didn't Bush promise this too?

i also am wondering what you intellectuals think of ron paul

Ron Paul is not a progressive candidate. He is fiercely against social reform, instead wanting a complete capitalist society without any regulation. While, in theory, he could end US imperialism in the world, and that is the only "good" thing, if anything.

But since capitalism has spread as it is - globally, this is very unlikely. What if your profit from Iraq's oil? Or Iran's? You would have to practice imperialism in any case, and that is why Ron Paul will never be elected.

Consider Kucinich instead.

PRC-UTE

22nd November 2007, 23:31

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 11:16 pm
i also am wondering what you intellectuals think of ron paul
the worst of nationalist capitalist ideology.

bootleg42

22nd November 2007, 23:41

Comrade Rage

23rd November 2007, 00:12

Originally posted by Refuse+November 22, 2007 06:16 pm--> (Refuse @ November 22, 2007 06:16 pm) would you guys consider hillary a good 2008 candidate? [/b]
No!

Originally posted by Refuse+--> (Refuse)she claims she wants to strengthen the middle class, but only by opening new jobs with better pay..[/b]
That's the standard capitalist line about how to solve poverty issues.

Never has worked-Never will!

[email protected]

though she does also want to cut CEO and corporate paychecks.. what do you guys think of hillary compared to the other candidates?
She's another right-wing democrat with no personality.
You'd think they'd have learned that those guys lose by now.

Refuse

i also am wondering what you intellectuals think of ron paul
They probably dismiss him as the libertarian fruitcake he is. :lol:

The KKK has endorsed Ron Paul BTW. If I were you, I'd look into who backs his candidacy.

Better read some revolutionary literature first!
Marxists.org (http://www.marxists.org)

Dros

23rd November 2007, 01:45

Refuse

23rd November 2007, 02:20

If anyone should decide to vote here, it would be for the Socialist Party or another party in the US. Hillary is not even a socialist - she may have been left-leaning in hear youth - but I doubt she even knows about class struggle.

i wasn't really asking wether or not anybody would cast a vote (for hillary) as much as your opinion on her compared to the other candidates

Consider Kucinich instead.

for some reason the fact he's a vegan really turns me off, plus he's crazy supportive of gun control - and well if you don't vote for change and can't own any guns, how can you be revolutionary?

You have no clue what this site is about do you????

That post is just embarrassing. Please go read up on revolutionary left works. We have a summary of that here.

wow my bad dude didn't mean to get your panties in a bunch. i had no idea that asking for other people's opinions on two presidential candidate was so absurd! surely, i know now that i should never ask questions to expand my knowledge and instead should make posts like yours - completely irrelevant and unhelpful. thanks dickhole.

This is a site for the REVOLUTIONARY LEFT, not some bourgois liberal bullshit. Hillary and Ron represent nothing but capitalist repression. Perhaps you should read... oh I don't know, anything on this site!

right, thanks for clearing that up.. you seem to really know your politics, now whenever i have a political discussion with somebody i can just say, "Well.. hillary and ron just respresent capitalist repression"

PS: Most people here don't vote in bourgoisie elections

you mean presidential elections? i don't see how voting for president is considered a bourgeois election..

but i could've guess that alot of you don't vote. most people on here seem to just be sporting a label.. just because you've read the books, doesn't mean you're a revolutionary.

i asked these questions because i am usually trying to spread revolutionary ideas throughout my peers - i've found it's much easier to do so when i stick with terms and people my peers would know, as opposed to just quoting something out of a book

Dros

23rd November 2007, 02:51

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 02:19 am

If anyone should decide to vote here, it would be for the Socialist Party or another party in the US. Hillary is not even a socialist - she may have been left-leaning in hear youth - but I doubt she even knows about class struggle.

i wasn't really asking wether or not anybody would cast a vote (for hillary) as much as your opinion on her compared to the other candidates

Consider Kucinich instead.

for some reason the fact he's a vegan really turns me off, plus he's crazy supportive of gun control - and well if you don't vote for change and can't own any guns, how can you be revolutionary?

You have no clue what this site is about do you????

That post is just embarrassing. Please go read up on revolutionary left works. We have a summary of that here.

wow my bad dude didn't mean to get your panties in a bunch. i had no idea that asking for other people's opinions on two presidential candidate was so absurd! surely, i know now that i should never ask questions to expand my knowledge and instead should make posts like yours - completely irrelevant and unhelpful. thanks dickhole.

This is a site for the REVOLUTIONARY LEFT, not some bourgois liberal bullshit. Hillary and Ron represent nothing but capitalist repression. Perhaps you should read... oh I don't know, anything on this site!

right, thanks for clearing that up.. you seem to really know your politics, now whenever i have a political discussion with somebody i can just say, "Well.. hillary and ron just respresent capitalist repression"

PS: Most people here don't vote in bourgoisie elections

you mean presidential elections? i don't see how voting for president is considered a bourgeois election..

but i could've guess that alot of you don't vote. most people on here seem to just be sporting a label.. just because you've read the books, doesn't mean you're a revolutionary.

i asked these questions because i am usually trying to spread revolutionary ideas throughout my peers - i've found it's much easier to do so when i stick with terms and people my peers would know, as opposed to just quoting something out of a book

right, thanks for clearing that up.. you seem to really know your politics, now whenever i have a political discussion with somebody i can just say, "Well.. hillary and ron just respresent capitalist repression"

No problem. I'm glad I've really broadened your undestanding here!

Allow me to explain.

Question: Does Hillary Clinton support capitalism?

Answer: Yes.

Question: Is capitalism a system grounded in slavery, thievery, and abuse?

Answer: Yes.

Question: Does Hillary support slavery?

Answer: Yes.

Question: But don't all presidential candidates support slavery then? Hmm... Hmm... Well don't they?

Answer: Yes.

Question: So who do you vote for?

Answer: I don't vote.

Question: What?! How could you betray the right to vote? How can you be so cynical? You should be thankful and proud that you live in a country where you have liberty!

Answer: Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

The Bourgoisie democratic system will accomplish no radical change ever! Period! My "right" to vote amounts to a right to chose the slave master. I don't recognize the U.S. imperial government as a legitimate orginization. I do not legitimize the dictatorship of the bourgoisie by participating in their farsical elections.

I don't think you really understand what revolutionary leftist politics are.

Tatarin

23rd November 2007, 05:12

i wasn't really asking wether or not anybody would cast a vote (for hillary) as much as your opinion on her compared to the other candidates

Well, in that case. It doesn't really matter to me since I don't live in the US.

for some reason the fact he's a vegan really turns me off,

And Barrack Obama smokes. That is his personal choice. Focus should be directed at what they do for (or against) society. People don't like Bush because he has grey hair, it is because of his actions against this world.

plus he's crazy supportive of gun control

Gun control or no gun control - what does it matter in the US. So what if you can own guns? Are you going to use them on the FBI? On all the armored personnel of the police? Or the National Guard, or the army?

My point here is that gun control does not matter in a capitalist society. You have induviduals using them, even on the police, and I think we all know how those situations ended. But most gun owners have guns for a "future scenario" - like a Russian or Chinese or Indian invasion.

Then again, Europe have countries with strict gun control laws, but less murder and violence (with guns) as the US. But the EU isn't a dictatorship.

you mean presidential elections? i don't see how voting for president is considered a bourgeois election..

It doesn't "seem wrong", because the candidates will change some things for either better or worse. Real change comes with real action. Do you consider it democratic to vote twice each decade? For candidates who support almost the same line? Who wage war after war after war?

Killer Enigma

23rd November 2007, 05:32

wow my bad dude didn't mean to get your panties in a bunch. i had no idea that asking for other people's opinions on two presidential candidate was so absurd! surely, i know now that i should never ask questions to expand my knowledge and instead should make posts like yours - completely irrelevant and unhelpful. thanks dickhole.
No need to resort to vulgarities or crude insults, but I agree.

SocialistMilitant

23rd November 2007, 07:41

Originally posted by Refuse+November 22, 2007 11:16 pm--> (Refuse @ November 22, 2007 11:16 pm)would you guys consider hillary a good 2008 candidate?

she claims she wants to strengthen the middle class, but only by opening new jobs with better pay..

though she does also want to cut CEO and corporate paychecks.. what do you guys think of hillary compared to the other candidates?[/b]
None of the candidates including Hilary Clinton and Ron Paul are good.

They all support capitalism.

They all support the War on Iraq.

They all support an attack on Iran.

They all support all kinds of imperalist acts including the so called "War on terrorism," the so called "War on Drugs" the blockade on Cuba, etc.

They all oppose universal healthcare.

They will stand by and watch our social security benefits get privatized.

[email protected] 22, 2007 11:16 pm
i also am wondering what you intellectuals think of ron paul
As for Ron Paul, who believes all his anti-imperalist rhetoric? The man is a CAPITALIST. Capitalism = Imperalism. It's not rocket science folks. You really think he would be opposed to hmmm lets say, a coup in Iran to open up new markets for American corporations? You really think this guy is a capitalist with a heart? Don't be fooled.

As far as Ron Paul's ideology libertarianism, it's extremely dangerous. Ron Paul is a hardcore capitalist.

-Ron Paul advocates a laissez-faire market which would then lead to market failure, inequality, monopolies.

-Ron Paul wants to abolish anti-trust laws.

-Ron Paul is pro-guns even though the 2nd amendment is irrelevant today (there was no army way back then, so every white male was given the right to bear arms).

-Ron Paul wants to abolish the Department of Education, no public schools in his view of America.

-Ron Paul is also anti-immigrant and has even said something along the lines of "we must also rethink this whole thing culturally," "these people need to learn the language." That's just a typical natavist argument. I could go on and on about Ron Paul and the ridiculous libertarian ideology.

RedStarOverChina

23rd November 2007, 11:40

http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d62/RedStarOverChina/72.jpg

RaÃºl Duke

23rd November 2007, 15:38

-Ron Paul is also anti-immigrant and has even said something along the lines of "we must also rethink this whole thing culturally," "these people need to learn the language." That's just a typical natavist argument. I could go on and on about Ron Paul and the ridiculous libertarian ideology.

Could you find a news article/direct quote/etc about this and the KKK thing so I can show to a friend?

Please

Bad Grrrl Agro

23rd November 2007, 16:37

Ron Paul is an anti-choice asshole.

SocialistMilitant

23rd November 2007, 18:26

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 03:37 pm

-Ron Paul is also anti-immigrant and has even said something along the lines of "we must also rethink this whole thing culturally," "these people need to learn the language." That's just a typical natavist argument. I could go on and on about Ron Paul and the ridiculous libertarian ideology.

Could you find a news article/direct quote/etc about this and the KKK thing so I can show to a friend?

Please
Here you go comrade; this came from an anti-immigrant article he wrote:

Our current welfare system also encourages illegal immigration by discouraging American citizens from taking low-wage jobs.

Economic considerations aside, we must address the cultural aspects of immigration. The vast majority of Americans welcome immigrants who want to come here, work hard, and build a better life. But we rightfully expect immigrants to show a sincere desire to become American citizens, speak English, and assimilate themselves culturally.
Source: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul269.html

These are excerpts from a newsletter he wrote back in 1992 in the wake of the Rodney King riots. In this newsletter, Ron Paul doesn't even try to be subtle with his racist views. This newsletter is so outrageous that you may not even believe this was published, but it was.

The criminals who terrorize our cities--in riots and on every non-riot day--are not exclusively young black males, but they largely are. As children, they are trained to hate whites, to believe that white oppression is responsible for all black ills, to "fight the power," and to steal and loot as much money from the white enemy as possible. Anything is justified against "The Man." And "The Woman.' A lady I know recently saw a black couple in the supermarket with a cute little girl, three years old or so. My friend waved to the tiny child, who scowled, stuck out her tongue,
and said (somewhat tautologically): "I hate you, white honkey." And the parents were indulgent. Is any white child taught to hate in this way? I've never heard of it. If a white child made such a remark to a black woman, the parents would stop it with a reprimand or a spank.

Korean-Americans, hated by blacks, never riot, and in fact are some of the most productive people in America (the reason for black hatred).

White people found themselves walking alone many blocks to get home, running the minefield of black gangs out for their blood.

We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings, and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers.
Source: http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/g/ftp...992/gannon.0793 (http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/g/ftp.py?people/g/gannon.dan/1992/gannon.0793)

^ There is so many outrageously racist claims in that article I just picked a few, I could of quoted that whole damn page.

Here is all the racist stormfront users showing their support for Ron Paul:
http://www.***************/forum/showthread...ing-388512.html (http://www.***************/forum/showthread.php/ron-paul-revolution-recent-upcoming-388512.html)

Faux Real

24th November 2007, 00:28

Remembering the scene in Sicko that showed her wanting to implement universal health care during her first tenure as first lady, it's kinda sad seeing how bad she regressed in terms of becoming a right wing Democrat.

No, neither her nor Obama, Ron Paul, Edwards, are "good" candidates because they're still "representatives of the proletariat"- i.e they're the bourgeoisie.

Paul's popularity reminds me of Hitlers popularity when the working class in the waning Wiemar Republic was looking towards a figurehead to lead them out of the post-war era.

RaÃºl Duke

24th November 2007, 03:27

Originally posted by SocialistMilitant+November 23, 2007 01:25 pm--> (SocialistMilitant @ November 23, 2007 01:25 pm)
[email protected] 23, 2007 03:37 pm

-Ron Paul is also anti-immigrant and has even said something along the lines of "we must also rethink this whole thing culturally," "these people need to learn the language." That's just a typical natavist argument. I could go on and on about Ron Paul and the ridiculous libertarian ideology.

Could you find a news article/direct quote/etc about this and the KKK thing so I can show to a friend?

Please
Here you go comrade; this came from an anti-immigrant article he wrote:

Our current welfare system also encourages illegal immigration by discouraging American citizens from taking low-wage jobs.

Economic considerations aside, we must address the cultural aspects of immigration. The vast majority of Americans welcome immigrants who want to come here, work hard, and build a better life. But we rightfully expect immigrants to show a sincere desire to become American citizens, speak English, and assimilate themselves culturally.
Source: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul269.html

These are excerpts from a newsletter he wrote back in 1992 in the wake of the Rodney King riots. In this newsletter, Ron Paul doesn't even try to be subtle with his racist views. This newsletter is so outrageous that you may not even believe this was published, but it was.

The criminals who terrorize our cities--in riots and on every non-riot day--are not exclusively young black males, but they largely are. As children, they are trained to hate whites, to believe that white oppression is responsible for all black ills, to "fight the power," and to steal and loot as much money from the white enemy as possible. Anything is justified against "The Man." And "The Woman.' A lady I know recently saw a black couple in the supermarket with a cute little girl, three years old or so. My friend waved to the tiny child, who scowled, stuck out her tongue,
and said (somewhat tautologically): "I hate you, white honkey." And the parents were indulgent. Is any white child taught to hate in this way? I've never heard of it. If a white child made such a remark to a black woman, the parents would stop it with a reprimand or a spank.

Korean-Americans, hated by blacks, never riot, and in fact are some of the most productive people in America (the reason for black hatred).

White people found themselves walking alone many blocks to get home, running the minefield of black gangs out for their blood.

We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings, and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers.
Source: http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/g/ftp...992/gannon.0793 (http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/g/ftp.py?people/g/gannon.dan/1992/gannon.0793)

^ There is so many outrageously racist claims in that article I just picked a few, I could of quoted that whole damn page.

Here is all the racist stormfront users showing their support for Ron Paul:
http://www.***************/forum/showthread...ing-388512.html (http://www.***************/forum/showthread.php/ron-paul-revolution-recent-upcoming-388512.html) [/b]
Thanks

:)

dty06

24th November 2007, 07:18

Hillary Clinton is a (stereo)typical politician. She will do and say ANYTHING for your vote. If your town is pro Gay rights, she'll tell you that she is too. But if the next town over isn't so pro Gay rights, she'll tell them that "marriage is a sacred thing".

There is only one acceptable mainstream candidate, and he isn't even that mainstream. His name is Chris Dodd, and every time i hear him speak or read something of his, i can only ask myself "why can't they have just one unbiased, equal talk time debate?" because i know that he would win it hands down. He's the one that is fighting the retroactive immunity of the Telecoms corporations that Bush and his traveling circus freakshow used to spy on Americans. instead of kissing babies in Iowa, he's been in the capitol building doing everything he can to stop this thing. And that's what I respect about him.

And about Ron Paul, I believe he once had a quote that said something like "I won't condemn a lynching"

...but they won't tell you that on CNN, and certainly not on Fox "News".

Lenin II

24th November 2007, 18:26

Will someone please either restrict or ban this obviously capitalist Refuse guy and move this idiotic thread?

The KKK has endorsed Ron Paul BTW. If I were you, I'd look into who backs his candidacy.

Check this out: WESTERN VOICES WORLD NEWS (http://www.wvwnews.net/). It’s a far-right white supremacist site. Just scroll down the stories and look at their constant Ron Paul support.

Although Socialist Militant and drosera99 said it well, it cannot be stressed enough. These people are all members of the same capitalist ruling class. They are not the least bit different from one another. The sheer meaning of the word REVOLUTIONARY means we support nothing but the absolute violent overthrow of the current government and capitalism in general. We do NOT support participating in rigged capitalist bourgeoisie reformist elections that mean nothing, and we do NOT support giving our voices to empower those oppressive ruling classes that have raped our planet for so long.

Refuse, post in the opposing ideologies forum, where this thread belongs, and read a few essays by Lenin, Marx and Trotsky. Maybe then you'll understand revolution.

bootleg42

24th November 2007, 21:52

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 07:17 am
There is only one acceptable mainstream candidate, and he isn't even that mainstream. His name is Chris Dodd, and every time i hear him speak or read something of his, i can only ask myself "why can't they have just one unbiased, equal talk time debate?" because i know that he would win it hands down. He's the one that is fighting the retroactive immunity of the Telecoms corporations that Bush and his traveling circus freakshow used to spy on Americans. instead of kissing babies in Iowa, he's been in the capitol building doing everything he can to stop this thing. And that's what I respect about him.

You know this is a REVOLUTIONARY left forum right???

Please to all noobs, go read up!!!!!!!!

Refuse

24th November 2007, 22:42

Originally posted by Lenin [email protected] 24, 2007 06:25 pm
Will someone please either restrict or ban this obviously capitalist Refuse guy and move this idiotic thread?

The sheer meaning of the word REVOLUTIONARY means we support nothing but the absolute violent overthrow of the current government and capitalism in general. We do NOT support participating in rigged capitalist bourgeoisie reformist elections that mean nothing, and we do NOT support giving our voices to empower those oppressive ruling classes that have raped our planet for so long.

you're being very biased.. get over yourself.

you call yourself revolutionary because you support something that doesn't even exist? or are you actually planning a violent overthrow? i've done my share of reading, now i'm trying to act. what have you done in your lifetime that would make you any more 'revolutionary' than me? i'm sure the answer to that is nothing.

i'm a person quite similiar to you, though you don't seem to want to accept it.. which is sad.. i'd expect a true revolutionary to smile at the idea of having just one more comrade, as opposed to drawing a border between us and getting so defensive like you have. you seem to be caught up in yourself, wake the fuck up man.

dty06

24th November 2007, 23:09

Originally posted by bootleg42+November 24, 2007 09:51 pm--> (bootleg42 @ November 24, 2007 09:51 pm)
[email protected] 24, 2007 07:17 am
There is only one acceptable mainstream candidate, and he isn't even that mainstream. His name is Chris Dodd, and every time i hear him speak or read something of his, i can only ask myself "why can't they have just one unbiased, equal talk time debate?" because i know that he would win it hands down. He's the one that is fighting the retroactive immunity of the Telecoms corporations that Bush and his traveling circus freakshow used to spy on Americans. instead of kissing babies in Iowa, he's been in the capitol building doing everything he can to stop this thing. And that's what I respect about him.

You know this is a REVOLUTIONARY left forum right???

Please to all noobs, go read up!!!!!!!! [/b]
yes i'm well aware. And while I would vote for him (if he got on the ballot), it does not mean that i support him 100%. Just because i don't refuse to vote in the elections of this country does not mean a damned thing. get over it. I'm a socialist, and nothing would make me happier than to see the capitalist system in this country (and all countries) overthrown, and should that mean by revolution, than so be it. But Che himself said that revolution should only be used when democratic change is not possible. In this country i know that capitalism will never end by democratic means, because those in power rule through the capitalist system and use it to maintain their power at the expense of the proletariat. But that does not mean that some good can be accomplished by those in power. Assuming the candidates keep their word (which is a big assumption, i know) then Dodd would do everything that he could to give us a universal health care system, not to mention that he would better fund the social security system and end our occupation of Iraq. And I believe that most of us on here support all these things (perhaps not the anarchists, if there are any). So if my one small vote can help those goals (since i live in a swing state, it is possible, assuming the elections are not rigged again, which again is a big assumption) why should i not vote? And even if my one small vote doesn't count for anything, so what? I've wasted a small portion of one day. In the long run, does that really matter?

MT5678

25th November 2007, 01:04

Look, Refuse.

There is, by and large, a bipartisan consensus between the Democrats and the Republicans.

In the 1980's both kept voting to expand deregulatory measures and military spending. Republican analyst Kevin Phillips described the Democrats as "the world's second-most enthusiastic capitalist party". He was correct.

Both groups have supported vicious and venal regimes such as Suharto, Pinochet, Somoza then Contra, Marcos, and the list goes on. (Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton all supported some of the guys on this list).

Hillary Clinton has supported vicious imperialist measures such as NAFTA and GATT. The Labor Advisory committee opposed these: for good reason.

I'll say more later.

SchrÃ¶dinger's Cat

25th November 2007, 01:52

IcarusAngel

25th November 2007, 01:56

Ron Paul wants to roll back worker's rights, women's rights, labor rights, and even Civil Rights. He's one of the worst candidates running. He also has no problem with deporting thousands of "illegal immigrants," forcing prayer in our schools, and allowing unlimited lobbying of US congress. Libertarians have no problem with "elite democracy" in this country, and they claim corporate influence is a matter of free-speech. He has no problem with imperialism as long as it's "declared" by the US congress.

Hillary actually never had a real UHC plan (and still doesn't) so I'd rank the candidates as follows:

Edwards
Obama
Clinton

Ron Paul.

Since we're talking about lower tier candidates here too (Pau) I'd say Kucinich is my number one choice.

MT5678

25th November 2007, 03:18

If anyone wishes to advance the cause of U.S. workers, he (or she) shouldn't bother with Republican/Democrat politics.

If this person is so vehemently revisionist, he should get together with some people and form a Labor Party with rank-and-file unionists (and then watch as corporate interests subvert this party as they did to the others :lol: ).

Of course, this person should also be restricted :lol:

Refuse

25th November 2007, 04:11

Dros

25th November 2007, 04:14

Originally posted by Refuse+November 24, 2007 10:41 pm--> (Refuse @ November 24, 2007 10:41 pm)
Lenin [email protected] 24, 2007 06:25 pm
Will someone please either restrict or ban this obviously capitalist Refuse guy and move this idiotic thread?

The sheer meaning of the word REVOLUTIONARY means we support nothing but the absolute violent overthrow of the current government and capitalism in general. We do NOT support participating in rigged capitalist bourgeoisie reformist elections that mean nothing, and we do NOT support giving our voices to empower those oppressive ruling classes that have raped our planet for so long.

you're being very biased.. get over yourself.

you call yourself revolutionary because you support something that doesn't even exist? or are you actually planning a violent overthrow? i've done my share of reading, now i'm trying to act. what have you done in your lifetime that would make you any more 'revolutionary' than me? i'm sure the answer to that is nothing.

i'm a person quite similiar to you, though you don't seem to want to accept it.. which is sad.. i'd expect a true revolutionary to smile at the idea of having just one more comrade, as opposed to drawing a border between us and getting so defensive like you have. you seem to be caught up in yourself, wake the fuck up man. [/b]
In what way are you similar? In what way are you revolutionary? Have you worked to educate and bring about class conciousness amoungst the masses as I and many others have? Well have you?

If you have (which I doubt) than why are you asking us about these fucking bourgois capitalist pigs?

If not, then the answer to your question is YES we are substantially more fucking revolutionary than you. And YES, we are trying to violently overthrow the U.S. government in the long run.

In the upper left hand corner of the page you are currently viewing you will see an "A" and a hammer and sickle. You WILL NOT see a donkey or an elephant. I do not endorse bourgois trash. I do not legitimize bourgois elections. And if, for [edit] some strange reason, I did decide to vote in those piece of shit rigged bourgois elections IT WOULD NOT BE FOR A DEMOCRAT-REPUBLICAN.

I suggest that you either leave or post in OI.

Comrade Rage

25th November 2007, 04:35

Originally posted by drosera99+November 24, 2007 11:13 pm--> (drosera99 @ November 24, 2007 11:13 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 10:41 pm

Lenin [email protected] 24, 2007 06:25 pm
Will someone please either restrict or ban this obviously capitalist Refuse guy and move this idiotic thread?

The sheer meaning of the word REVOLUTIONARY means we support nothing but the absolute violent overthrow of the current government and capitalism in general. We do NOT support participating in rigged capitalist bourgeoisie reformist elections that mean nothing, and we do NOT support giving our voices to empower those oppressive ruling classes that have raped our planet for so long.

you're being very biased.. get over yourself.

you call yourself revolutionary because you support something that doesn't even exist? or are you actually planning a violent overthrow? i've done my share of reading, now i'm trying to act. what have you done in your lifetime that would make you any more 'revolutionary' than me? i'm sure the answer to that is nothing.

i'm a person quite similiar to you, though you don't seem to want to accept it.. which is sad.. i'd expect a true revolutionary to smile at the idea of having just one more comrade, as opposed to drawing a border between us and getting so defensive like you have. you seem to be caught up in yourself, wake the fuck up man.
In what way are you similar? In what way are you revolutionary? Have you worked to educate and bring about class conciousness amoungst the masses as I and many others have? Well have you?

If you have (which I doubt) than why are you asking us about these fucking bourgois capitalist pigs?

If not, then the answer to your question is YES we are substantially more fucking revolutionary than you. And YES, we are trying to violently overthrow the U.S. government in the long run.

In the upper left hand corner of the page you are currently viewing you will see an "A" and a hammer and sickle. You WILL NOT see a donkey or an elephant. I do not endorse bourgois trash. I do not legitimize bourgois elections. And if, for [edit] some strange reason, I did decide to vote in those piece of shit rigged bourgois elections IT WOULD NOT BE FOR A DEMOCRAT-REPUBLICAN.

I suggest that you either leave or post in OI. [/b]
To be fair, I think this guy is just clueless on revolutionary politics,
Nothing a little learning can't fix.

Refuse

25th November 2007, 06:08

In what way are you similar?

I agree with karl marx on all of his writings that i personally have read, and i am also an advocate of socialism - regardless of what you try and label me as..

In what way are you revolutionary? Have you worked to educate and bring about class conciousness amoungst the masses as I and many others have?

Yes, i have done so and that is why i would consider myself a revolutionary. Everybody i come in contact with who knows me on a personal level knows what my beliefs are. I've showed my books to my family and have even let friends borrow them. I've spread anti capitalist ideas throughout my peers and even my co workers. Hell, i even quit my last job after calling the manager out on being a pig.

Well have you?

Yes. :)

If you have (which I doubt) than why are you asking us about these fucking bourgois capitalist pigs?

I like being able to talk to my friends about people and ideas they would know about, to give them a more radically left perspective on things. I've found that people in america are more interested in politics and politicians that are actually relevant to the current american situation.

By asking this revolutionary community what it's collective thoughts on clinton and ron were, I was aiming to have had a compilation of interesting and structured criticisms i could share with my friends. I personally know people who favour the two and that is why i picked them out over the others.

I regret that the response i was hoping for wasn't exactly what i got.

If not, then the answer to your question is YES we are substantially more fucking revolutionary than you. And YES, we are trying to violently overthrow the U.S. government in the long run.

Well then why my friend, are you pushing me away? You're hoping for just one more enemy to have when the time comes?

I suggest that you either leave or post in OI.[/

Well dude that suggestion really blows. I suggest you find a new mindset and rethink your opinions on me.

SocialistMilitant

25th November 2007, 07:18

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 04:10 am
you really think i should be stripped of the right to post for starting this thread? if so i'm sorry you feel that way, and i'd feel even more sorry for this site in general if i actually were to be restricted
You just need to learn about the left, the real left. Leftists in this country aren't even
represented by any political party. Democrats are not leftists.

Check out the learning section of this forum.
Here's a good site: http://www.marxists.org/

I recommend these books to start off:

-Marx-Engels Reader Edited by Robert Tucker (Includes the communist manifesto,
capital, etc)
-State and Revolution by Lenin
-Imperalism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism by Lenin
-Fidel Castro Reader
-Che Guevara Reader
-Malcolm X Speaks
-Killing Hope by William Blum
-A People's History of the U.S by Howard Zinn
-Manufacturing Consent by Noam Chomsky
-Hegemony or Survival by Noam Chomsky

Would any comrades like to add a few titles to this list?

MT5678

25th November 2007, 18:18

you really think i should be stripped of the right to post for starting this thread? if so i'm sorry you feel that way, and i'd feel even more sorry for this site in general if i actually were to be restricted

Being restricted doesn't mean you can't post. It means that you post in OI.

If you don't like revolutions, get together with some guys and form a progressive, laborite party free from corporate power.

Cheung Mo

27th November 2007, 04:50

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 11:16 pm
would you guys consider hillary a good 2008 candidate?

she claims she wants to strengthen the middle class, but only by opening new jobs with better pay..

though she does also want to cut CEO and corporate paychecks.. what do you guys think of hillary compared to the other candidates?

i also am wondering what you intellectuals think of ron paul
Paul: At least he's against the War on Drugs, so I can't see how he'd be worse for miorities than Bush, Reagan, or Clinton. (Now I understand that some people from StormFront support him, but I don't think the average StormFronter is well informed at all with regards to drug policy or any aspect of public policy..hahaha) Other than that, he's a reactionary and an idiot...He won't bug Chavez as much as Bush is though.

Hillary Clinton: She sat on the board of directors at WalMart, was married to a guy who blew up a medicine factory in Sudan for the Hell of it, and seems to consider limiting access to extremely violent games to 18-year-olds (as opposed to 17-year-olds) as one of the most important issues facing the American working class. Oh...And she supports all of the Bush Sadministration's foreign policies (Every Democrat's foreign policy is worthy of ridicule with the exception of Dennis Kucinich...At least he's not calling Chavez a dictator...IF Nancy Pelosi cared so much about her fucking grandkids, she wouldn't be so goddamn ignorant when she opens her mouth about Latin America...And given that the Hildebeast is far more reactionary than Pelosi, I think you all know where this is going...)

Cheung Mo

27th November 2007, 04:55

If I'm going to criticise Kucinich's dietary habits, I'm afraid I have no business drinking or smoking pot. Likewise, I'd also have to make reference to Chavez's heavy use of caffeinated beverages.

Cryotank Screams

28th November 2007, 00:51

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 07:24 pm
Consider Kucinich instead.

A capitalist is a capitalist and there is no fundamental difference between any of the candidates. When the trumpets of war sounded, elephants and donkeys walked hand in hand and the US government will always work to the interest of the big bourgeois, so really, what is the point?

Bad Grrrl Agro

28th November 2007, 21:37

Originally posted by drosera99+November 25, 2007 04:13 am--> (drosera99 @ November 25, 2007 04:13 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 10:41 pm

Lenin [email protected] 24, 2007 06:25 pm
Will someone please either restrict or ban this obviously capitalist Refuse guy and move this idiotic thread?

The sheer meaning of the word REVOLUTIONARY means we support nothing but the absolute violent overthrow of the current government and capitalism in general. We do NOT support participating in rigged capitalist bourgeoisie reformist elections that mean nothing, and we do NOT support giving our voices to empower those oppressive ruling classes that have raped our planet for so long.

you're being very biased.. get over yourself.

you call yourself revolutionary because you support something that doesn't even exist? or are you actually planning a violent overthrow? i've done my share of reading, now i'm trying to act. what have you done in your lifetime that would make you any more 'revolutionary' than me? i'm sure the answer to that is nothing.

i'm a person quite similiar to you, though you don't seem to want to accept it.. which is sad.. i'd expect a true revolutionary to smile at the idea of having just one more comrade, as opposed to drawing a border between us and getting so defensive like you have. you seem to be caught up in yourself, wake the fuck up man.
In what way are you similar? In what way are you revolutionary? Have you worked to educate and bring about class conciousness amoungst the masses as I and many others have? Well have you?

If you have (which I doubt) than why are you asking us about these fucking bourgois capitalist pigs?

If not, then the answer to your question is YES we are substantially more fucking revolutionary than you. And YES, we are trying to violently overthrow the U.S. government in the long run.

In the upper left hand corner of the page you are currently viewing you will see an "A" and a hammer and sickle. You WILL NOT see a donkey or an elephant. I do not endorse bourgois trash. I do not legitimize bourgois elections. And if, for [edit] some strange reason, I did decide to vote in those piece of shit rigged bourgois elections IT WOULD NOT BE FOR A DEMOCRAT-REPUBLICAN.

I suggest that you either leave or post in OI. [/b]
Oh great, the "holier than thou" perspective.
I don't agree with that refuse guy. but that's no way to get people to do something positive. You are just pushing him away.

Guerrilla22

28th November 2007, 21:39

Don't waste your time voting.

AGITprop

28th November 2007, 21:49

hillary is a sellout!
america could have had universal health care
u dont
u know why
cuz hillary sold out1!

in adavnce..i state my source as michael moore..lol

bezdomni

28th November 2007, 22:02

america could have had universal health care

LONG LIVE AMERICA!

hillary is a sellout!

All bourgeois politicians are sellouts. The problem isn't hillary "being a sellout" - it's the whole damn system.

AGITprop

28th November 2007, 22:06

yea but hillary is an extra sellout fot openly supporting health care and then all of a suden never mentionning it again

JWG

28th November 2007, 22:08

Welcome to American politics. The best actors in the world, watch out Hollywood, USA!

Dros

28th November 2007, 23:29

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 09:36 pm
Oh great, the "holier than thou" perspective.
I don't agree with that refuse guy. but that's no way to get people to do something positive. You are just pushing him away.
I don't think it was a "holier than thou" argument. I thought he misunderstands the word "revolutionary" as used on this forum and I was attempting to demonstrate what I think it means. I was not attempting to raise myself in any way.

Comrade Nadezhda

1st December 2007, 19:55

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 04:05 pm
yea but hillary is an extra sellout fot openly supporting health care and then all of a suden never mentionning it again
Hillary's "role" is rather small when regarding to the bourgeois state and politics under it.

The bourgeois political system creates this mess- which is why you have numerous bourgeois politicians under different party names which may seem quite different from each other when they are really advocating/promoting the same bourgeois shit.

For the mostpart, there is no difference. They are reactionary in regards to each other, but that in itself does not make them more or less bourgeois. They are still the same, give or take a few rather small issues.

It wouldn't make a difference whether you have George W. Bush, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Ron Paul, or some other bourgeois fuck elected into the government. What you have are capitalist vs. capitalist elections. Hillary aside, the bourgeois electoral system still exists and you've still got capitalist vs. capitalist bullshit.