Amazing

[Imperial Power]

Look how riled up you all are. Simmer down, it will be all right. If you don't argree with with logic and superior reasoning maybe you should evaluate yourself. You don't want to get more swept up in a fairy tale system of socialism then you have to. I'm sorry to burst yor bubble but I'm telling you the way it is. Capitalism is superior. Vox your denying a fact, how can you deny facts? You can start any political party in the United States you want along with any religion. Malte had a hard time again. He switched my rank to make him feel better. So predictable.

[peaccenicked]

Imperial power is a wanker that is a fact. how can you deny a fact?
wanker=complete narcissist. How can you argue with
this superiopr reasoning. It is undeniable and anyone who disagrees is irrational. It is fundamental to the free world and the basis of my existence . It can't be wrong.
I bet you a 100pesos I am not wrong. It is a sure bet.Havent I proved it yet.

[Supermodel]

Hey, imperial, can you do me a favor? Get the picture of Ricky Martin teaching GWB to dance at the inauguration for your avatar. At least there will be something good to look at when you post.

[Imperial Power]

Super I don't know what to expect from day to day with my avatar Malte likes to change it because I hurt his feelings.

[I Will Deny You]

Imperial Power, you can borrow mine:
http://www.che-lives.com/community/avatars/personal/I_Will_Deny_You.gif

[Imperial Power]

thanks

[Hayduke]

Well well well imperial moron is in another post..............
Still not sick of playing with your money I see

[peaccenicked]

here are some cartoons
http://george2.keenspace.com/enduring.html

[Supermodel]

http://home.att.net/~tsarm4/images/ff40.JPG

[Hayduke]

He imperial moron wich guy made you pic right ?

[Imperial Power]

D Day independent research led me to make the logical choice.

[peaccenicked]

http://www.humorshack.com/archive/cartoons/36.shtml

[vox]

Imperialist,

I've shown you to be wrong in the other thread, which you have not, of course, responded to, for I don't believe you can. Yes, I really believe you're that stupid. Rather then respond, you start this thread, much ado about nothing, really.

As for capitalism being superior, I'm going to be nice and suggest that you mean it's superior to socialism. However, you don't say (which is quite typical for you) what you think is superior about it. Some suggestion:

It's superior in concentrating wealth into the hands of the few.

It's superior at destroying to right to collective bargaining.

It's superior at placing a dollar value on human life.

It's superior at preserving class distinctions.

Yes, I say that capitalism is superior in all the thing I listed. None of them are desirable, of course, but that's your problem.

vox

[Imperial Power]

blah blah blah

"I'm right and your Wrong"- Vox

Maybe you should reread the points I made in the other thread you did nothing to prove they were wrong.

[peaccenicked]

IP
blah
blah
here is you mentor, you merely regurgitate and do her a disservice. you bad disciple you.

Introducing Objectivism
An essay by Ayn Rand


Ayn Rand named her philosophy “Objectivism” and described it as a philosophy for living on earth. Objectivism is an integrated system of thought that defines the abstract principles by which a man must think and act if he is to live the life proper to man. Ayn Rand first portrayed her philosophy in the form of the heroes of her best-selling novels, The Fountainhead (1943) and Atlas Shrugged (1957). She later expressed her philosophy in nonfiction form.
Ayn Rand was once asked if she could present the essence of Objectivism while standing on one foot. Her answer was:

Metaphysics: Objective Reality
Epistemology: Reason
Ethics: Self-interest
Politics: Capitalism

She then translated those terms into familiar language:

“Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed.”
“You can’t eat your cake and have it, too.”
“Man is an end in himself.”
“Give me liberty or give me death.”

The basic principles of Objectivism can be summarized as follows:

Metaphysics
“Reality, the external world, exists independent of man’s consciousness, independent of any observer’s knowledge, beliefs, feelings, desires or fears. This means that A is A, that facts are facts, that things are what they are — and that the task of man’s consciousness is to perceive reality, not to create or invent it.” Thus Objectivism rejects any belief in the supernatural — and any claim that individuals or groups create their own reality.

Epistemology
“Man’s reason is fully competent to know the facts of reality. Reason, the conceptual faculty, is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses. Reason is man’s only means of acquiring knowledge.” Thus Objectivism rejects mysticism (any acceptance of faith or feeling as a means of knowledge), and it rejects skepticism (the claim that certainty or knowledge is impossible).

Human Nature
Man is a rational being. Reason, as man’s only means of knowledge, is his basic means of survival. But the exercise of reason depends on each individual’s choice. “Man is a being of volitional consciousness.” “That which you call your soul or spirit is your consciousness, and that which you call ‘free will’ is your mind’s freedom to think or not, the only will you have, your only freedom. This is the choice that controls all the choices you make and determines your life and character.”Thus Objectivism rejects any form of determinism, the belief that man is a victim of forces beyond his control (such as God, fate, upbringing, genes, or economic conditions).

Ethics
“Reason is man’s only proper judge of values and his only proper guide to action. The proper standard of ethics is: man’s survival qua man — i.e., that which is required by man’s nature for his survival as a rational being (not his momentary physical survival as a mindless brute). Rationality is man’s basic virtue, and his three fundamental values are: reason, purpose, self-esteem. Man — every man — is an end in himself, not a means to the ends of others; he must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself; he must work for his rational self-interest, with the achievement of his own happiness as the highest moral purpose of his life.” Thus Objectivism rejects any form of altruism — the claim that morality consists in living for others or for society.

Politics
“The basic social principle of the Objectivist ethics is that no man has the right to seek values from others by means of physical force — i.e., no man or group has the right to initiate the use of physical force against others. Men have the right to use force only in self-defense and only against those who initiate its use. Men must deal with one another as traders, giving value for value, by free, mutual consent to mutual benefit. The only social system that bars physical force from human relationships is laissez-faire capitalism. Capitalism is a system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which the only function of the government is to protect individual rights, i.e., to protect men from those who initiate the use of physical force.” Thus Objectivism rejects any form of collectivism, such as fascism or socialism. It also rejects the current “mixed economy” notion that the government should regulate the economy and redistribute wealth.

Esthetics
“Art is a selective re-creation of reality according to an artist’s metaphysical value-judgments.” The purpose of art is to concretize the artist’s fundamental view of existence. Ayn Rand described her own approach to art as “Romantic Realism”: “I am a Romantic in the sense that I present men as they ought to be. I am Realistic in the sense that I place them here and now and on this earth.” The goal of Ayn Rand’s novels is not didactic but artistic: the projection of an ideal man: “My purpose, first cause and prime mover is the portrayal of Howard Roark or John Galt or Hank Rearden or Francisco d’Anconia as an end in himself — not as a means to any further end.”

Of her inferior metaphysics.

A=A when does anything equal itself in the real world
Is this not a denial of individuality. A thing does not equal itself it grows or decays.
"and that the task of man’s consciousness is to perceive reality, not to create or invent it.” Thus Objectivism rejects any belief in the supernatural — and any claim that individuals or groups create their own reality."
This is material not unlike Lenin's. However we go deeper than that, History makes people and people make history. We are not obedient slaves to what we percieve we grasp nature and try to make it conform to our needs. History is the transformation of nature's control over man, to our mastery over nature. The struggle of life itself.

epistomology.
This is in line with all marxists.

human nature?????????
This is myopic self interest. Under capitalism there are
class interests. Even the ruling class recognise the need to sacrifice unpopular leaders. Thats why they some times resign. Her argument also implies that self interest justifies a dictator above democratic society. Does not living for others or society imply living against them. The premis is immoral and inhumane and uncharitable. Happiness is contemplation of the higher things in life, the arts etc This is happiness of 'ignorance is bliss.' The lowest form of human morality. The transformation of the human beast into a virtue.
Politics
Free trade as if all the world were businessmen.
The working class supporters of capitalism may rejoice in free trade but they want protectionism when it comes to their jobs. Is that not self interest?
So far you just seem to be decieving yourself.
The aesthetics of art to dislay man as an end himself.
The bible and the greater whole of literature from shakespeare to Twain sets out to expose this very idiocy. It is an astonishingly ignorant claim.
you act like an evangelist for this cult. Like a mormon at the door or a Jehevah's witness. You are not even here to try to understand our arguments.
Have I not spent too much time on yours already.

[Moskitto]

If you're a "true" capitalist you can't feel true love. True Love requires giving, self-sacrifice. All of which are opposites of self interest.

If you experience true love you know that you aren't a true (lessaiz-faire) capitalist.

[bleed3r]

i smell arrogance, excuse me, americanism...

[Imperial Power]

Moskitto that is a warped idea of capitalism. Giving to charitable organizations is part of capitalism. That's how such things as the Red Cross run.

[Moskitto]

Giving is not self interest because it gives you nothing so giving is not a capitalist ideal. If people are naturally greedy then no one would give to charities because you would make a loss. People do give to charities so people aren't greedy.

Remember the ferengi rules of aquisition "There's nothing wrong with charity, as long as it winds up in your pocket." This isn't chatity at all.

(Edited by Moskitto at 9:07 pm on Feb. 3, 2002)

[James]

hey ameri****, u just like being on top. Understandable. You want to be the one and only super power. Yet you put down countries when they rebel, why? how did your country come into existance? your so arrogant, when will you open your eyes? You got planes flown through your buildings (not that i support the attacks blah blah blah) because of your attitude towards others. If it was upto america, she'd rather live in a nazi world than a fair world and don't what ever you say, say that your country is fair! If someone stands up to your oppresive nature, you either bomb em, or hire people to do all the dirty work for you. Its been along time coming if you ask me.
This is all understandable (your pompuse attitude), you only see what you want to see (or allowed to see???). open your eyes to the real world, or if they hurt too much (as they would to anyone in your situation), put your self in some one elses situation. Nother country, and not my country (england) coz we have a dick in charge who likes to lick all ur asses.

[peaccenicked]

Self interest and torture
It's time to start pulling fingernails, says CIA

By Bob Drogin and Greg Miller in Washington

Intelligence officials are starting to ask: how far can we go?

Those at the CIA, members of congressional oversight committees and others say they find themselves in conversations about kidnapping family members of suspected terrorists, hiring Afghan drug lords and bandits as informants, and possible assassination attempts.

There was no sign that such extreme plans had been launched, officials said, but it seems that little is off the table.

Drawing on classified legal memorandums, the Bush Administration has concluded that executive orders banning assassinations do not prevent the president from lawfully singling out a terrorist for death by covert action.

The CIA believes itself able to kill any terrorists the president designates.
Armed with additional funding and a lethal presidential authorisation, the CIA is reaching out to its retired veterans and others for manpower and ideas.

The discussions were so wide-ranging that the CIA almost appears to be "winging it" as it searched for new techniques, said one recently retired senior intelligence official.

The chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Bob Graham, said that if terrorists were not motivated by political ideology or money, United States intelligence might be forced to prey on other vulnerabilities, including "families, relatives, religious beliefs".

Asked whether the CIA or other agencies should use torture to gain information, Senator Graham said: "I personally would advise the US not to have a double standard on human rights in terms of people who are in detention."


A former CIA operative who retired with 30 years experience said a debate had raged over interrogation techniques since September 11.

"A lot of people are saying we need someone at the agency who can pull fingernails out."


Another former CIA operations officer, who served extensively in the Middle East, said he had urged CIA officials to consider assassinating known financiers of al-Qaeda. "I said if you start killing guys who write cheques, people are going to stop writing cheques."

He also suggested targeting close relatives of known terrorists.

Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post

[vox]

Quote: from Imperial Power on 1:48 pm on Feb. 2, 2002
blah blah blah

"I'm right and your Wrong"- Vox

Maybe you should reread the points I made in the other thread you did nothing to prove they were wrong.


Once again, I stand by what I wrote, and, once again, you didn't even try to answer what I stated about capitalism in my post in this thread.

You lose, imperialist.

vox

[vox]

Still no answer for me, lightweight?

You really can't do it, can you? Hee!

Perhaps you can find another right-wing FAQ to post.

You seem to be very unaware, which is a good thing, or, I imagine, you wouldn't be able to face the day, so great would be your shame.

vox (laughing at you)

[Imperial Power]

Vox
I sense a lot of anger here. Do you have some personal problems? Perhaps you have social anxiety disorder and your releasing stress that you can't express in normal life? Anyway you have a severe inferiority complex. My being right worries you so much that anxiety has caused you to sink to personal attacks. Your not helping your case and in the eyes of others only lowering there opion of you. Im wondering how many hours you spend on this site every day. You seem to expect that I should be reading each thread every 10 min. Do you?

[vox]

HA!

How very pathetic of you. I've asked you REPEATEDLY to answer in other threads, and not a peep from the Imperial Coward. NOTHING!

You're a joke, boy. A punchline.

Perhaps you could stop with the pop psychology and actually try to answer direct questions. I doubt that, though, for you only seem to want to avoid answering me.

It must be hard for you, being so outsmarted by me.

vox

[vox]

Still not even trying, Impotent Powerless?

How sad for you.

vox

[vox]

And after all this time, IP still can't answer me, he can only insult me.

What a true and deep fool he must be, comrades. Surely he's had the time to formulate a response, but he doesn't, rather relying upon the prejudices of those who dislike me.

Feh, O Commander of the Untruth!!!

Again, in case you've forgotten:

I win, and you, as always, lose.

vox (drag thy form away from me, sick and putrid thing)

[MindCrime]

I think if it's fair to compare all our arguments for Communism to Joseph Stalin, then it is equally fair to compare your arguments of capitalism to Ayn Rand.

In addition, I think the bit about capitalists not being able to feel love is utterly brilliant.

[Forever capitalism]

We don't merely refer to Stalin, that would be discrimination to all the other communist/totalitarian dictators. Let's not forget Mao, Lenin, Castro, Pol Pot, etc
Is that what you want to here, the crimes committed by your heros?

[peaccenicked]

pol pot was an american puppet.

[Forever capitalism]

He still marched under the banner of socialism. I dont' think america wanted him to kill 2 million cambodians. Still these dictators represent your system. YOu can't possibly say they weren't socialist or communist or whatever. The fact is they tried to establish communist regimes yet failed so ultimately had to turn to despotism and abuse of human rights to maintain their failed regimes. History has taught us communism doens't work anywhere. Nobody can argue against that it has worked somewhere and is still working now.

[Rosa]

Pol pot was not socialist or communist, during his studying at the Sorbonne he obviously haven't understood the meaning of communism. Comunism can be realised by working (industrial) class, and Cambogia didn't have one. Over there it was a revolution of villagers, and communism is closly connected with technical progress, so you can't say that what happened over there was a "communist revolution", or that it was a communist regime.You just want to disqualify the idea of communism by using arguments against totalitarism, and that's the argue that peaccenick had won on site of another topic.

[MindCrime]

Stalin and Pol Pot are not my "heros," forever Cap. Marx, Che and Trotsky, thats a little better. Now, please elaborate on the millions these cruel dictators slaughtered.

[Forever capitalism]

Lenin has been covered in the latest reply in the "Capitalism is the superior system" thread, whilst Guevara executed 550 "counter revolutionaries", supported nuclear war against the U.S., instigated guerrilla wars where they were not wanted or needed in the Congo, then Zaira, and Bolivia. Fought alongside with Kabila, former Congolese dictator. Trotsky was the general that led the bloody 1917 revolution that was not supported by the masses and supported a dictator in Lenin as Guevara supported Fidel. Marx i think wrote in purity however i don't like his theories on religion.

[peaccenicked]

supported nuclear war ??
source. please.

[Moskitto]

Pol Pot believed the Khmer's were the master race. Socialists believe there isn't such thing as a master race because everyone's equal. Therefore, Pol Pot does not= Socialist.

Another thing is The Congo which Che fought in (Belgian Congo) is the same place as Zaire. And Belgian Congo had one of the biggest and greediest mass murderers of all time, (The biggest mass murder apart from Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Ghengis Khan.)

[TheDerminator]

Seems to me, a bit simplistic. Year zero, was a brutal peasant mentality which was anti-civilisation, to just see in terms of supremacy does not really say why it gripped Kampuchea, and why it gained such a momentum.
It is always an error just to blame the leader be it a Hitler, or a Stalin or a Pol Pot, the Khymer Rouge came out of some of the heaviest bombing in South East Asia during the Vietnam War, it does not excuse their genocidal atrocities, but you have to ask why and people like Henry Kissinger share the blame with Pol Pot.
History has taught us nothing about communism, since communism has never existed in history, we only have seen primitive socialist societies, and although you can make the case that Pol Pot was more a complete fucking Luddite than a socialist.