Americans who vote for Democrats and Republicans are indirectly guilty of mass murder [Archive]

RGacky3

2nd May 2008, 05:27

Also if yo upay taxes your guilty, also if you buy stuff your guilty (most likely), pretty much if you eat too, because most likely that food has come from a source that exploits workers horrifically, (food industries notorious for that), so if you eat your guilty, if you pay taxes your killing children, so go to jail or be a killer. OH also if you have a retirement plan that has mutual funds, you are responsible for every coorporation included in that mutual fund, if one happends to be military related, MURDERER, and even if they are not, your an exploiter.

Actually if you don't vote, what ever politician is elected is your responsibility, because you had a chance to help stop him.

People who vote in America don't have a choice, the choice is either don't vote, and get whatever comes, or vote, and try and get a preferible result.

Your Asshole logic makes no sense, and then saying Justify your actions after that, what a judgemental irrational asshole you are. Do you think this type of dickhead behavior is going to win people over to the left?

BTW, I don't vote. So I'm off the hook. But I do eat ... So, shame on me I'm sorry exploited farm workers, and starving people, I'm sorry.

If thats the case any one who votes anywhere is directly responsible for the state of their countires, most of which are just as bad as the United States, only other countires don't have the ability to destroy and pillage as much as the United States, its naive to think they would'nt if they could.

So lesson learned: leftists that make wide sweeping irrational asshole statements are dickheads and end up making a bad name for the radical left by being such.

Dr. Rosenpenis

2nd May 2008, 07:05

It's funny how defensive people get when you bring up this sort of thing. I suspect the problem is an unhealthy dose of blind patriotism.

Eating is not a choice. Paying taxes is not a choice either. Buying things is not a choice. To vote for for candidates of either of two parties, from dozens and dozens of others, makes you guilty. Guilty of not only complying with their murderous actions, but actively giving it support and helping it to stay in power and continue to conduct wars. And candidates you didn't vote for aren't your responsibility.

Not every other elected ruling party has been guilty of murdering millions of innocent people around the globe. Not all voters grant their support to candidates of parties which have revealed themselves to sponsor mass murder. And I think other countries do have the capacity to cause plenty more destruction and make much more wars if their governments were so inclined. Don't forget that out of roughly a dozen countries that possess the bomb, the US has been the only one to use it. It's net because your government can. It's because it wants to, and it has managed to get you to agree. Since you're not a child, I have no other choice but to hold you accountable. "You" in the plural sense, of course,

Anashtih

2nd May 2008, 07:33

So what exactly do you propose we do? I find it highly unlikely that doing absolutely nothing at all will prove particularly effective, so what's the alternative you're suggesting? I'm not being trite, I'm curious.

Dr. Rosenpenis

2nd May 2008, 07:37

You could (1) vote for anyone who isn't a Democrat or a Republican, (2) not vote at all or (3) get the fuck outta mah face.

Dr. Rosenpenis

2nd May 2008, 07:39

heh, just kidding

But, to be honest, simply not voting sounds like a pretty good idea. I don't know what your party's or union's position is on things like this, but I suspect that any real leftist party would never have their members vote for a Democrat.

Le LibÃ©rer

2nd May 2008, 07:57

You could (1) vote for anyone who isn't a Democrat or a Republican, (2) not vote at all or (3) get the fuck outta mah face.
Typical Dr R charm.
I would take it a step further. If you even live in the US and know anything about US history and dont move, you are supporting terrorism on the world.
Isnt it a shame the people who understand that are usually the oppressed and couldnt move if they want to, because they are poor?

freakazoid

2nd May 2008, 08:00

Eating is not a choice. Paying taxes is not a choice either. Buying things is not a choice.

Yes you do, yes you do, and yes you do. You can grow, hunt, and forage your own food. You can choose to not give money to the government, doesn't mean they won't come after you. And you can choose to not buy things, you are not forced to buy things.

But, to be honest, simply not voting sounds like a pretty good idea.

Then you have done nothing to help not get someone in office.

You could (1) vote for anyone who isn't a Democrat or a Republican,

from dozens and dozens of others

There sure are a lot of those. The problem is that there isn't dozens of others, there are two. Of course I am only taking about the US, don't know the situation in other countries.

Guilty of not only complying with their murderous actions, but actively giving it support and helping it to stay in power and continue to conduct wars.

Simply voting for them doesn't mean that you support everything they do, or that you really support anything they do. It could mean that you support one thing that they do that you strongly agree with, or that they don't support something that you strongly disagree with.

Dr. Rosenpenis

2nd May 2008, 08:04

Not voting isn't out of anyone's reach. In fact, some people might actually be too poor to vote. Couldn't afford the commute or the gas.

Living somewhere, like eating and paying taxes, isn't a choice. Well, not sometimes, at least. Nobody is complacent with a murderous regime if all they do is live in the country governed by those murderers. It's very different indeed from voting, which is the active backing of a politician. It's the political sponsorship.

Dr. Rosenpenis

2nd May 2008, 08:10

Yes you do, yes you do, and yes you do. You can grow, hunt, and forage your own food. You can choose to not give money to the government, doesn't mean they won't come after you. And you can choose to not buy things, you are not forced to buy things.

In practice, people are forced to buy things. They are in no way at all forced to vote for Democratic or Republican candidates. Comparing the two things is ridiculous in the extreme.

Then you have done nothing to help not get someone in office.

You have also done nothing to put them in power. You have also not legitimized the electoral process by participating in it.

There sure are a lot of those. The problem is that there isn't dozens of others, there are two. Of course I am only taking about the US, don't know the situation in other countries.

There are dozens of others in the United States and in any liberal democracy.

Simply voting for them doesn't mean that you support everything they do, or that you really support anything they do. It could mean that you support one thing that they do that you strongly agree with, or that they don't support something that you strongly disagree with.

Fortunately, people don't vote for part of a candidate, they vote for all of it. "Well, on one hand he's a unscrupulously belligerent and murderous, a cold-blooded killer, but I do agree with his policy on education funding."

freakazoid

2nd May 2008, 08:28

In practice, people are forced to buy things.

Like?

You have also done nothing to put them in power. You have also not legitimized the electoral process by participating in it.

By not voting you haven't done anything to stop them.

Fortunately, people don't vote for part of a candidate, they vote for all of it. "Well, on one hand he's a unscrupulously belligerent and murderous, a cold-blooded killer, but I do agree with his policy on education funding."

You must be REALLY in support of there policy on education if you would vote for that person. That is why you weigh what they would do with your beliefs. People do vote for certain parts of what they say they are for. It would be pretty hard to find someone who believes in everything the candidate says they are for.

There are dozens of others in the United States and in any liberal democracy.

Two major parties, the only to that really matter in the process, thanks media, :mad: While there are other parties, they are so insignificant that they do not matter to the process, doesn't mean that you can't support them if they propose what you believe in. But out of all of those others, do you believe in everything that they support? Because if you don't then that must automatically mean that you support it to right?

pusher robot

2nd May 2008, 08:47

How is that?

Because you attribute motive where none exists. Look at it this way: suppose your average American could choose between two scenarios in any given military conflict:
(A) Compliance with huge casualties.
(B) Compliance with few casualties.

You are suggesting that they deliberately choose (A), which I believe is wishful thinking on your part. In fact, Americans suffer great expense and loss to minimize casualties on all sides while achieving the given objective.

Now, in the specific case of Iraq, the objective was to topple Saddam's regime and establish a secularish liberalish democracy in its place. If this could have been accomplished with zero casualties, we would have accomplished it with zero casualties. Failing that, we have done just about everything in our power to achieve the objective with as few casualties as possible.

You might argue that it should have been obvious that at least some casualties would be necessary. But in this particular instance, there would have been casualties as a consequence of our decision no matter what decision we made, unless you're one of those fools who believes that life under Saddam was skittles and beer. We chose to pursue our objective, and people died. But if we would have chosen to not pursue our objective, people would have died. Maybe more. Definitely less justifiably.

Now we face a similar situation with Darfur. We can choose to intervene, which will certainly result in us having to kill people who try to kill us for intervening. Or we can not intervene, which will certainly result in people dieing that we could possible have saved. There is literally no option we have that will not leave us indirectly responsible for the deaths of at least thousands.

So you see, the false premise is that we had any obviously better alternatives. Perhaps, in a philosophical sense, we are less morally culpable for our failures to act than we are for our actions taken, but that's an argument best left to the ivory tower. In the real world, we often have to make a decision to act or not, knowing that in either case, people will die as the result of our choice.

RGacky3

2nd May 2008, 09:05

Obviously Dr. Rosenpenis, you don't like in the United States.

They are in no way at all forced to vote for Democratic or Republican candidates. Comparing the two things is ridiculous in the extreme.

No they arn't forced but they vote because they genuinely believe that one would do better than the other. What is rediculous to the extreme is calling people who vote murderers, and guilty of all the crimes of who they voted for. Its obvious you don't understand the sham that electoral politics is, and the complete lack of a real democracy in the United States and for that matter really any State around.

You could (1) vote for anyone who isn't a Democrat or a Republican, (2) not vote at all or (3) get the fuck outta mah face.

(1) Obviously you don't live in America
(2) thats a good option, however some people believe they can at least change minimally
(3) Not when you make such a statement as "If you vote democrat or republican you are a murderer."

It's funny how defensive people get when you bring up this sort of thing. I suspect the problem is an unhealthy dose of blind patriotism.

Try go into your local bar, and tell everyone that if they voted, they are guilty of mass murder, and they are all killers, see how funny iy is when they get all defensive and see if you get out alive.

I don't vote, but I do get defensive when anyone says something as rediculous and inflametory as "If you voted republican or democrat you are a murderer" becaus its not only a rediculous statement its a strong accusation, it has nothign to do with patriotism at all.

What you are saying is like saying "Anyone who voted in the Soviet System when Stalin was in power is guilty of the mass murders in gulags." Youd find the same defensiveness if you said that.

So yeah, your an asshole.

Bud Struggle

2nd May 2008, 13:59

But, to be honest, simply not voting sounds like a pretty good idea.

Yea, not allowing people to vote seems to be a pretty common theme among Communist dictators. :lol:

pusher robot

2nd May 2008, 17:28

It's funny how defensive people get when you bring up this sort of thing. I suspect the problem is an unhealthy dose of blind patriotism.

I want to second how ridiculous and disingenuous this is as well. You accuse people of being guilty of possibly the worst the worst crime imaginable, then act all surprised that they disagree with you? Now you're just blatantly trolling. I mean, what would a "normal" response be in your view? Laughing it off?

LuÃs Henrique

2nd May 2008, 20:47

Everybody knows the policies of these two parties. No feigning ignorance. Americans who vote for Democrats and Republicans are complicit with murderous imperialist wars. The American people are marginalized and this ruling elite in no way represents them, but those who go to the voting stations to actively support the killers, purely out of free will, are guilty.

What is the use of such position? What do we gain by passing such judgement over a few tens of million people?

Evidently, besides useless, such statement is false. Common Americans have no real notion of what their State's actions do to people abroad. I remember once discussing some issue in snopes.com, when someone (non-American, for sure) accused Lygett-Myers of harming workers in the third world. An American lady posted back, "but how can they harm people on the other side of the world, when they are in West Virginia?" Evidently, I replied to a link to Lygett-Myers, where they brag about their presence in more than 50 countries world-wide, and a short text on how they exploit peasants in Southern Brazil.

In fact, most Americans would support isolationism, which shows how little they understand the relationships between the US and other countries.

Luís Henrique

Phalanx

2nd May 2008, 22:09

I dunno about that. I've never physically harmed anyone or voted for a politician to do it for me.

Take a look at yourself first. You live in Brazil, a country with the highest amounts of murder and police killings in the world. Anyone you know that voted for your politicians support the killings in the favelas, by your logic. There's no difference between supporting the murders that go on in the favelas versus the ones that happen in Sadr City.

Bluetongue

2nd May 2008, 22:24

But, to be honest, simply not voting sounds like a pretty good idea. I don't know what your party's or union's position is on things like this, but I suspect that any real leftist party would never have their members vote for a Democrat.

So, everyone who is socially conscious refuses to vote and what happens then? The neocons win. This isn't about making me feel good about myself. It's about dealing with complex issues, limited choices, and trying to make the world better. Not voting does not make the world a better place. Your "protest" is ignored. I'm surprised the Republicans don't fund your little message. They'd LOVE it if all the leftists boycotted the election.

You think the two party system is corrupt, so you sit at home, and we lose Roe vs. Wade. Are you not then responsible for the loss of abortion rights? Not voting does not in ANY WAY make you not responsible for who is elected.

ComradeBeerhead

3rd May 2008, 01:28

It's funny how defensive people get when you bring up this sort of thing. I suspect the problem is an unhealthy dose of blind patriotism.

Or common sense.

Eating is not a choice

Getting your food from those who support the Capitalist system is.

Paying taxes is not a choice either.

Ever hear of Henry David Thoreu? You know, Resistance to Civil Government? Anyway, in response to the Mexican War, he stopped paying taxes and went to jail.

Obviously, we chose to succomb to the murderers and help them finance their bloodshed instead of facing that option.

Buying things is not a choice.

What do you mean by this?

To vote for for candidates of either of two parties, from dozens and dozens of others, makes you guilty. Guilty of not only complying with their murderous actions, but actively giving it support and helping it to stay in power and continue to conduct wars. And candidates you didn't vote for aren't your responsibility.

Not every other elected ruling party has been guilty of murdering millions of innocent people around the globe. Not all voters grant their support to candidates of parties which have revealed themselves to sponsor mass murder. And I think other countries do have the capacity to cause plenty more destruction and make much more wars if their governments were so inclined. Don't forget that out of roughly a dozen countries that possess the bomb, the US has been the only one to use it. It's net because your government can. It's because it wants to, and it has managed to get you to agree. Since you're not a child, I have no other choice but to hold you accountable. "You" in the plural sense, of course,

You're right. Those who march insupport of it are guilty.

Those who sat in the back, then gathered on their leftist websites....all the while supporting the actions just as much by financing the bloodshed....aren't actually guilty because they say so.

What a naive, immature, and un-thought out position.

"I'm against capitalism because I made this cool protest sign [I bought at Wal-Mart]" :laugh:

Demant

3rd May 2008, 02:22

So, if i decide to vote Green or whatever, and McCain gets elected, how is it that I'm not responsible for that? If you stay hope and feel superior, are you not responsible for what happens? Not voting is an action, there are still consequences. I *loathe* the two party system - but I can't allow that nasty little neocon TOAD to become president.

The adult response is to do the best you can with what you have. It certainly beats flipping off the man and feeling self-righteous.
Ladies and gentlemen, post of the year.

This is EXACTLY the point of voting for the democrats. That, and Obama is a helluva candidate. Much respect to you, Bluetongue.

Dr. Rosenpenis

3rd May 2008, 03:03

What is the use of such position? What do we gain by passing such judgement over a few tens of million people?

I think they might think twice before voting for mass murderers.

Evidently, besides useless, such statement is false. Common Americans have no real notion of what their State's actions do to people abroad. I remember once discussing some issue in snopes.com, when someone (non-American, for sure) accused Lygett-Myers of harming workers in the third world. An American lady posted back, "but how can they harm people on the other side of the world, when they are in West Virginia?" Evidently, I replied to a link to Lygett-Myers, where they brag about their presence in more than 50 countries world-wide, and a short text on how they exploit peasants in Southern Brazil.

That doesn't describe all Americans. Either way, part of the purpose of this judgment is to let American voters know what the politicians they support do. Also, distinguishing where people stand is something I find important in politics. If Americans who support murderers, know that they support murderers, and continue to support these murderers, then we know what side they're on. I like that.

In fact, most Americans would support isolationism, which shows how little they understand the relationships between the US and other countries.

Which shows how little they know about international politics in general.

Dr. Rosenpenis

3rd May 2008, 03:04

Take a look at yourself first. You live in Brazil, a country with the highest amounts of murder and police killings in the world. Anyone you know that voted for your politicians support the killings in the favelas, by your logic. There's no difference between supporting the murders that go on in the favelas versus the ones that happen in Sadr City.

I think there IS a difference between the US conducting a belligerent, imperialist war, bombing family homes, hospitals, etc. and Brazil trying to impose order through unscrupulous violence in its national territory in regions that suffer from unjust social and economic conditions.

So, are you gonna vote for any mass murderers in the upcoming elections? Which ones? Will they murder more or less people? Who do you think they should murder first?

Dr. Rosenpenis

3rd May 2008, 03:19

Getting your food from those who support the Capitalist system is.

In practice, not really.
In any case, going to the voting station to cast your support for a murderous tyrant is very, very different from going to the store to buy things for your survival because you have chosen to make your living in a perfectly legitimate way, that is, participating in the economy that prevails where you happen to live, which in turn, happens to be wildly unjust. Not your fault.

Ever hear of Henry David Thoreu? You know, Resistance to Civil Government? Anyway, in response to the Mexican War, he stopped paying taxes and went to jail.

If this action is isolated from a legitimate movement with coherent goals, it's useless.

Obviously, we chose to succomb to the murderers and help them finance their bloodshed instead of facing that option.

Like I said before in reference to buying things, paying taxes is simply a characteristic of living in your society. Voting for either of two mass-murdering political parties is not. It's a choice.

Shopping at Wal-Mart also doesn't make anyone guilty of anything. In practice, people don't have a choice but to buy things from capitalists. That doesn't make them complicit.

Sky

3rd May 2008, 03:22

I would agree that those Americans that participate in the political process bear responsibility for the actions of their regime overseas. It's interesting to note that only about 35 percent of eligible American voters bothered to even participate in the elections of 2006. Those Americans that participate in the political process and cast their lot with either the Republican or Democratic parties can be reasonably held responsible for the actions of their regime and face the appropriate consequences.

RGacky3

3rd May 2008, 03:23

I think they might think twice before voting for mass murderers.

You just skipped the whole thread did'nt you, first of all, its not the leaders or parties that make the difference its the system, any serious leftist should know that, but I guess you think that just if we vote the right person into office everything will be ok.

That doesn't describe all Americans. Either way, part of the purpose of this judgment is to let American voters know what the politicians they support do. Also, distinguishing where people stand is something I find important in politics. If Americans who support murderers, know that they support murderers, and continue to support these murderers, then we know what side they're on. I like that.

So whats your solution for Americans, btw. I hope you did'nt vote in Brazil, because if you did, your a killer. So your idea of what Americans should do is not vote, thus giving their government a free hand to do whatever they want.

Oh btw, the Iraq war I believe was the first war protested in America before it even started, I don't know if thats happend in other countries as well.

Your in no position to judge anyone, at all. Most Americans know what their government does, but theres not much they can do about it, and some believe that by voting for a lesser evil might ease what their government does. BTW, I hope your judgemenet rolls over to every chinese citizen that votes as well.

I think there IS a difference between the US conducting a belligerent, imperialist war, bombing family homes, hospitals, etc. and Brazil trying to impose order through unscrupulous violence in its national territory in regions that suffer from unjust social and economic conditions.

Of coarse there is a difference, but the principle is the same, you support government violence in Brazil, and the unjust social system that exists there, so go fix it then come and talk to us.

So, are you gonna vote for any mass murderers in the upcoming elections? Which ones? Will they murder more or less people? Who do you think they should murder first?

If anyone votes with conscious to try and lessen what their government is doing (and what I'm 100% sure Brazil would do if it could) then more power to them.

I would agree that those Americans that participate in the political process bear responsibility for the actions of their regime overseas. It's interesting to note that only about 35 percent of eligible American voters bothered to even participate in the elections of 2006. Those Americans that participate in the political process and cast their lot with either the Republican or Democratic parties can be reasonably held responsible for the actions of their regime and face the appropriate consequences.

So are all the Chinnese and all the citizens of the USSR, and pretty much every other country that has participated in war and oppression, right? In fact I'm starting to think the Mexican citizens are to blaim for what happend in Oaxaca and Atenco, and that the Russian people actually are killing chechens.

Dr. Rosenpenis

3rd May 2008, 03:53

You just skipped the whole thread did'nt you

I'm not going to reply to every single post due to time constraints, laziness, and my desire to avoid repetitiveness.

first of all, its not the leaders or parties that make the difference its the system, any serious leftist should know that, but I guess you think that just if we vote the right person into office everything will be ok.

Nowhere have I suggested such.
This can be much easier if we avoid putting words in peoples' mouths.

So whats your solution for Americans, btw.

An armed revolution, of course.

I hope you did'nt vote in Brazil, because if you did, your a killer.

I did vote, and no, I'm not a killer. I'm not accusing all voters of being killers. I'm accusing Democratic and Republican voters of being killers. People who voted for this state's administration can be included. But certainly not all voters.

Your in no position to judge anyone, at all. Most Americans know what their government does, but theres not much they can do about it

Not voting for the people that do those things would be a start, wouldn't it?

and some believe that by voting for a lesser evil might ease what their government does.

It might.
Who would that lesser evil be?

Of coarse there is a difference, but the principle is the same

No, the principle is different.

you support government violence in Brazil, and the unjust social system that exists there, so go fix it then come and talk to us.

No, I don't

professorchaos

3rd May 2008, 04:01

"It is better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it." -Debs (unsourced)

RGacky3

3rd May 2008, 04:02

It might.
Who would that lesser evil be?

Some believe the democrats will take the US out of war, thats the lesser evil, are those poeple killers?

Not voting for the people that do those things would be a start, wouldn't it?

Like I said, in many peoples eyes thats juts giving the government a free hand.

I'm accusing Democratic and Republican voters of being killers. People who voted for this state's administration can be included. But certainly not all voters.

You have way to much faith in the so-called democratic process my friend. To think that voters actually decide policy.

No, the principle is different.

Not at all, both are killing people, and both are governemtns voted in.

Nowhere have I suggested such.
This can be much easier if we avoid putting words in peoples' mouths.

Well you seam to think that if Americans voted for a different party things would be different america would'nt be imperialistic, if you did'nt believe that you would'nt call those who voted for democrats of republicans to be killers, because you would realize that its not the party its the system.

One question you completely failed to answer, its a very important one, is what about the citizens of China? the former USSR? Mexico? What about those countires? are the voters at fault there as well?

Sky

3rd May 2008, 04:03

In fact I'm starting to think the Mexican citizens are to blaim for what happend in Oaxaca and Atenco
Lopez Obrador, the rightful President of Mexico, has blasted the government's conduct on Oaxaca.

and that the Russian people actually are killing chechens.

The Russian people overwhelmingly opposed the use of force in Chechnya. In 1995, only 15 percent of Russians supported the use of force.

Comrade Rage

3rd May 2008, 05:16

But, to be honest, simply not voting sounds like a pretty good idea.Sounds like a good idea to me too. Why should I have to get my ass up and walk to a polling place just to add legitimacy to some crook seeking power?
but I suspect that any real leftist party would never have their members vote for a Democrat.Anyone who suggests voting/endorsing Dumocrats because 'they're better than that other guy' should just join the CPUSA. I'm sick of this same collective amnesia where people vote for some guy to get something done, and shockingly, nothing changes. They just go through the same song and dance every election, even though elections have not changed anything.

Typical Dr R charm.
I would take it a step further. If you even live in the US and know anything about US history and dont move, you are supporting terrorism on the world.
Isnt it a shame the people who understand that are usually the oppressed and couldnt move if they want to, because they are poor?I can't even afford to move to a better part of town, let alone a better part of the world. Then again, I think that I should just fight for change here in America anyway.

ManyAntsDefeatSpiders

3rd May 2008, 05:21

If you live in America and pay taxes then you are materially supporting American imperialism and hence indirectly responsible for the killings of millions of innocents. You should be prosecuted for those crimes.

(Note: don't take that seriously).

Bluetongue

3rd May 2008, 05:40

So, everyone who is socially conscious refuses to vote and what happens then? The neocons win. This isn't about making me feel good about myself. It's about dealing with complex issues, limited choices, and trying to make the world better. Not voting does not make the world a better place. Your "protest" is ignored. I'm surprised the Republicans don't fund your little message. They'd LOVE it if all the leftists boycotted the election.

You think the two party system is corrupt, so you sit at home, and we lose Roe vs. Wade. Are you not then responsible for the loss of abortion rights? Not voting does not in ANY WAY make you not responsible for who is elected.

Anyone who suggests voting/endorsing Dumocrats because 'they're better than that other guy' should just join the CPUSA. I'm sick of this same collective amnesia where people vote for some guy to get something done, and shockingly, nothing changes. They just go through the same song and dance every election, even though elections have not changed anything.

How does joining the CPUSA stop the war in Iraq? How does it accomplish *anything*? Stop talking about shit and get a job that makes the world a better place. Go pick up trash along the street. Cook food for the homeless. Anything.

An armed revolution, of course.

Against the US army? Are you completely insane? This isn't the 19th century. A bunch of lunatics with rifles and molotov cocktails will result only an a smoking hole in the ground and a lot of bad publicity for the left. There is no chance WHATSOEVER of a popular armed revolution in the USA - and there's absolutely no reason for it. The USA is, in fact, a democracy. You can't get the majority to vote for what you like so, what, you're going to shove it down their throats with a pistol????

Comrade Rage

3rd May 2008, 06:00

Bluetongue, that has to be the most uninformed post I've seen in a while.
You seem to forget that the Neocons, in fact, came out of the Dumocratic Party in the Fifties. They have since been gaining support slowly but surely in BOTH parties, and have, in fact, taken over the Repubican Party. They almost have the Dumocrats as well.

How does joining the CPUSA stop the war in Iraq? How does it accomplish *anything*?I wasn't actually suggesting joining that politically-bankrupt outfit, I was attacking the pro-Dumocrat base of the Left.

Stop talking about shit and get a job that makes the world a better place.I deliver groceries deep in the ghetto for nothing, it's volunteer work. Some of the places I deliver to are elderly people, who never leave their house because there is NO grocery store in the neighborhood; they've all been boarded up. WHAT DO YOU DO??

Against the US army? Are you completely insane? This isn't the 19th century. A bunch of lunatics with rifles and molotov cocktails will result only an a smoking hole in the ground and a lot of bad publicity for the left. There is no chance WHATSOEVER of a popular armed revolution in the USA - and there's absolutely no reason for it. The USA is, in fact, a democracy. You can't get the majority to vote for what you like so, what, you're going to shove it down their throats with a pistol????If the US Army is such an elite fighting force, than why has it not put down the poorly armed insurgency in Iraq? You are also severely underestimating the quality of guns available to people. Whether you like it or not, it's a lot easier to get automatic weapons than you believe.

Zurdito

3rd May 2008, 06:12

The USA is, in fact, a democracy. You can't get the majority to vote for what you like so, what, you're going to shove it down their throats with a pistol????

that's rubbish, the USA is not a democracy, the media is privately owned and represents the bourgeoisie. revolutionaries will in fact be a minority until a revolutionary situation anyway, this is because as Karl Marx said "the ideology of the urling class is the dominant ideology in any society". so it's not a case of jamming naything "down people's throats" with a pistol: you will simply never get elected as a socialist within a capitalist system. this is because it's not a demcoracy, rather, the economy is controlled by a small elite who will onyl produce when profitbale, therefore, a "socialist" governemnt under capitalism=economci disaster. you can only introduce socialism once you have socialised the means of production, and you can only do this by force, because the bourgeoisie will never allow it to happen through elections.

Bluetongue

3rd May 2008, 06:14

I deliver groceries in the ghetto for nothing, it's volunteer work. Some of the places I deliver to are elderly people, who never leave their house because there is NO grocery store in the neighborhood; they've all been boarded up. WHAT DO YOU DO??

I research emerging infectious diseases. I quit corporate america to do this - now I have to rely on public assistance to get the insulin I need to live. I salute your efforts - what you do is the real revolution, not guns and bombs.

If the US Army is such an elite fighting force, than why has it not put down the poorly armed insurgency in Iraq? You are also severely underestimating the quality of guns available to people. Whether you like it or not, it's a lot easier to get automatic weapons than you believe.

Public opinion, which would matter not a bit in a civil war. The US army could actually exterminate the Iraqi opposition, if given the green light. What good is an automatic rifle against nerve gas? Or a tank? How many US soldiers have been killed in Iraq? 3000? How many Iraqis? All the US government would have to do is turn off the power, and you'd have mobs of couch potatoes howling for commie blood.

I apologize for misunderstanding your sarcasm, but you have (on accident, I think) misquoted me in your previous post.

Os Cangaceiros

3rd May 2008, 06:20

Against the US army? Are you completely insane? This isn't the 19th century. A bunch of lunatics with rifles and molotov cocktails will result only an a smoking hole in the ground and a lot of bad publicity for the left. There is no chance WHATSOEVER of a popular armed revolution in the USA - and there's absolutely no reason for it. The USA is, in fact, a democracy. You can't get the majority to vote for what you like so, what, you're going to shove it down their throats with a pistol????

This assumes that the US Army is a united, unflinching entity that is going to storm through communities in the US and put down any rebellion with ease.

'Tis not the case.

Somewhere around 74% of US servicemen said they would disobey direct orders to fire on American citizens if they were given the order. While that number is still lower than it should be, it indicates something. The National Guard would undoubtedly fracture in the face of popular uprising. There are many, many cases in history where the armed forces of a nation have turned against those giving them orders in revolutionary situations. It even happened to a certain extent during the mass strike of 1877 in the United States.

That said, I don't think any sort of action of that nature is realistic or preferable at this time.

Comrade Rage

3rd May 2008, 06:30

I research emerging infectious diseases. I quit corporate america to do this - now I have to rely on public assistance to get the insulin I need to live. I salute your efforts - what you do is the real revolution, not guns and bombs.Thanks, although I wouldn't go so far as to discount armed struggle. I believe that armed revolution will be a valuable component of our revolution once we are at that stage. We aren't at that stage yet, but we are getting close.

Public opinion, which would matter not a bit in a civil war. The US army could actually exterminate the Iraqi opposition, if given the green light. What good is an automatic rifle against nerve gas? Or a tank? How many US soldiers have been killed in Iraq? 3000? How many Iraqis? All the US government would have to do is turn off the power, and you'd have mobs of couch potatoes howling for commie blood. Public opinion was pretty much even at the start of the war, although our side did a better job at expressing ourselves. The simple fact is that a guerilla warrior can move faster, and strike more effectively than a large well-supplied but intrinsically slow army. This fact is confirmed by many revolutionary Marxists, and even Donald Rumsfeld. He came up with the idea of the "Lighter, Quicker Force" which was tried in 2003, it was the initial force of the invasion besides 'Shock and Awe'. He was anticipating that his plan could counteract the advantages of the guerilla, and he FAILED.

Also, Public Opinion does matter in a civil war. Positive Public Opinion is the revolutionary's most important tool, and everything must be done to maintain positive public outlook on the revolutionary cause.

I apologize for misunderstanding your sarcasm, but you have (on accident, I think) misquoted me in your previous post.How so?

How does joining the CPUSA stop the war in Iraq? How does it accomplish *anything*?
Link provided (click the icon next to your name)

Phalanx

3rd May 2008, 07:14

How is there any difference between US marines destroying neighborhoods in Iraq and BOPE laying waste to homes in the favelas? The favelas are almost a different world compared to mainstream life in Brazil. How is this different to marines killing Iraqis half a world away?

Dr. Rosenpenis

3rd May 2008, 07:20

Some believe the democrats will take the US out of war, thats the lesser evil, are those poeple killers?

Yes, they are killers.
And they have said that they will not get the US out of war. Not immediately, anyways. They still wanna get a little bit more murdering done first.

Like I said, in many peoples eyes thats juts giving the government a free hand.Well, many people are wrong. People who vote for Democrats are giving murderers a much bigger hand than people who don't vote.

You have way to much faith in the so-called democratic process my friend. To think that voters actually decide policy.Voters do not decide policy. But through the ballot they can reject or approve certain actions. Especially after these abhorrent actions have been repeated dozens and dozens of times over.

Not at all, both are killing people, and both are governemtns voted in.That doesn't make them the same. Both the government of Guatemala and the Nazi regime in Germany practiced capital punishment. Both are very different. And both are also very different from the United States in the Mid East and from Brazilian law enforcement.

Well you seam to think that if Americans voted for a different party things would be different america would'nt be imperialisticI absolutely said no such thing!

if you did'nt believe that you would'nt call those who voted for democrats of republicans to be killers, because you would realize that its not the party its the system.I never said it wasn't the system and that it was the party. What I'm objecting to is the consistent support for the two parties which have been responsible for most of the enormous amount of bloodshed and killing that has taken place in the past 60 years.

Dr. Rosenpenis

3rd May 2008, 07:25

The favelas are almost a different world compared to mainstream life in Brazil.

That's totally untrue.

What you must be mistaking for mainstream Brazilian life accounts for maybe 10% of the population.

The Brazilian police are practically just as filthy and thuggish as the ones in the US. But that's not what we're discussing. If you want to blame those who voted for the present government of Rio, be my guest. Or for the Federal government. I wouldn't. But you can.

Bluetongue

3rd May 2008, 07:36

that's rubbish, the USA is not a democracy, the media is privately owned and represents the bourgeoisie. revolutionaries will in fact be a minority until a revolutionary situation anyway, this is because as Karl Marx said "the ideology of the urling class is the dominant ideology in any society". so it's not a case of jamming naything "down people's throats" with a pistol: you will simply never get elected as a socialist within a capitalist system. this is because it's not a demcoracy, rather, the economy is controlled by a small elite who will onyl produce when profitbale, therefore, a "socialist" governemnt under capitalism=economci disaster. you can only introduce socialism once you have socialised the means of production, and you can only do this by force, because the bourgeoisie will never allow it to happen through elections.

What are you ON? Capitalist democracies outside the US routinely elect socialist governments. "Democracy" means one person, one vote. It has nothing at all to do with economics. Are you even aware of the existence of Venezuela? How do you explain South Africa?

Once again, to Dr. Rosecoloredpenis

So, everyone who is socially conscious refuses to vote and what happens then? The neocons win. This isn't about making me feel good about myself. It's about dealing with complex issues, limited choices, and trying to make the world better. Not voting does not make the world a better place. Your "protest" is ignored. I'm surprised the Republicans don't fund your little message. They'd LOVE it if all the leftists boycotted the election.

You think the two party system is corrupt, so you sit at home, and we lose Roe vs. Wade. Are you not then responsible for the loss of abortion rights? Not voting does not in ANY WAY make you not responsible for who is elected.

Plagueround

3rd May 2008, 11:40

I hate the idea of electing someone from either party and appealing to the "lesser of two evils" idea, but I honestly don't think the world can take another member of the Nixon crime syndicate in office.

LuÃs Henrique

3rd May 2008, 14:29

That doesn't describe all Americans. Either way, part of the purpose of this judgment is to let American voters know what the politicians they support do.

And it is quite possibly the most inept and stupid way of doing that. If you start by assuming that they are guilty, how do you expect they will even stop to think about the issue? Their evident, natural, human response will be to deny the issues.

Also, distinguishing where people stand is something I find important in politics. If Americans who support murderers, know that they support murderers, and continue to support these murderers, then we know what side they're on. I like that.

Our business is not "knowing what side" people are, but to change people's side.

Which shows how little they know about international politics in general.

And they are criminals because they are ignorant?

Luís Henrique

Zurdito

3rd May 2008, 14:30

What are you ON? Capitalist democracies outside the US routinely elect socialist governments. "Democracy" means one person, one vote. It has nothing at all to do with economics. Are you even aware of the existence of Venezuela? How do you explain South Africa?

Neither South africa nor Venezuela have socialist governments, I don't care what label different bourgeois parties give themselves, I am talking about real socialism, i.e. the abolition of private property under workers control.

Your definition of "democracy" is completely unmarxist. for a materialist, democracy has everything to do with economics. "democracy" means "rule of the people". unless all people collectively own the means of production, they do not "rule". Are you even aware of the term "ruling class"?

EDIT: and please don't talk to me in that patronising tone, I've forgotten more about Venezuela than you will ever know.

LuÃs Henrique

3rd May 2008, 14:33

Yes, they are killers.

And so are you. You killed Doroty Stang, remember?

What an arsehole you are, kid.

Luís Henrique

RGacky3

6th May 2008, 04:14

My question keeps getting dodged, are the Chineese people responsible for the Chinese Governments killings, were thee Soviet people responsible for the Soviet killings?

The Brazilian police are practically just as filthy and thuggish as the ones in the US. But that's not what we're discussing. If you want to blame those who voted for the present government of Rio, be my guest. Or for the Federal government. I wouldn't. But you can.

Yes we are because if your going to blame votes for what an administration does, it has to be universal, otherwise your a hyporcrite.

That doesn't make them the same. Both the government of Guatemala and the Nazi regime in Germany practiced capital punishment. Both are very different. And both are also very different from the United States in the Mid East and from Brazilian law enforcement.

Your right, but that does'nt change the fact that its infact the Guatemalen people and the German people who are responsible for their governments actions, acording to your logic.

freakazoid

6th May 2008, 04:51

I deliver groceries deep in the ghetto for nothing, it's volunteer work. Some of the places I deliver to are elderly people, who never leave their house because there is NO grocery store in the neighborhood; they've all been boarded up. WHAT DO YOU DO??

Wow, I have so much respect for that, wish I knew of places where I cold do things like that, :(

What good is an automatic rifle against nerve gas? Or a tank?

Against the US army? Are you completely insane? This isn't the 19th century. A bunch of lunatics with rifles and molotov cocktails will result only an a smoking hole in the ground and a lot of bad publicity for the left. There is no chance WHATSOEVER of a popular armed revolution in the USA - and there's absolutely no reason for it. The USA is, in fact, a democracy. You can't get the majority to vote for what you like so, what, you're going to shove it down their throats with a pistol????

I think you completely underestimate the amount of people who would fight, and what they have. But I see that the propaganda has worked on you, "Resistance is futile, we are stronger." Also the USA is NOT a democracy, it was a republic, but now it is turning into a fascist police state. Not much longer until it becomes one, and we should be preparing for the day that the jackbooted thugs come knocking in your door and they send you off to FEMA concentration camps for thought crimes if HR 1955 comes to pass.

Resist! Long live the revolution! :blackA::hammersickle:

Dejavu

6th May 2008, 05:08

Well if you feel you must vote, you can fill in a candidate of your choice and it doesn't even need to be a nominee. Though I disagree with the technicalities of the author of this post, I agree with him with the implication that voting is futile.

Dejavu

6th May 2008, 05:18

http://photos-d.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sctm/v214/36/57/637688546/n637688546_450443_1664.jpg

http://photos-350.ll.facebook.com/photos-ll-sf2p/v46/179/112/18402350/n18402350_30913912_3847.jpg

Os Cangaceiros

6th May 2008, 05:24

I suspect that accusing the 50 percent of voting age American men and women who actually vote of being "indirectly guilty of mass murder" will do wonders for working class solidarity.

Dejavu

6th May 2008, 05:32

Not every American votes, not even 50%. So taking 50% of a much smaller portion of the entire population yields a rather small number in proportion to the overall census. Given that, most people, even hardcore conservatives ( or liberals) wouldn't willingly vote for mass murder. Rather, the state sells the idea of intervention as something we ought to do for the 'greater good.' Most Americans that favor war believe they are favoring the 'greater good' and the ends can justify the means. If they knew truly that that the 'good fight' did nothing to promote global welfare I think most would be hesitant to support that position.

Os Cangaceiros

6th May 2008, 05:41

Not every American votes, not even 50%.

55 percent of (eligible) Americans voted in the 2004 Federal election.

Dejavu

6th May 2008, 05:45

Thanks for being precise. Point was that we have nearly half the population that doesn't vote ( it was less than 50% in 2000 wasn't it?).

6th May 2008, 05:56

Os Cangaceiros

6th May 2008, 05:57

I got my info from here:

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html

Looks like 2000 barely scrapped over 50 percent.

Midterms consistantly fall below the 50 percent line, although it's interesting that the 2006 midterm had the highest turnout since 1970.

freakazoid

6th May 2008, 06:10

I don't see how you will win over people to this movement by calling them accessories to genocide.

You won't, it is nothing but sectarianism BS.

LuÃs Henrique

6th May 2008, 06:21

I don't see how you will win over people to this movement by calling them accessories to genocide.

On the other hand, we will undoubtedly feel undescribably coooool.

Luís Henrique

Dr. Rosenpenis

6th May 2008, 06:39

Our business is not "knowing what side" people are, but to change people's side.

Agreed. But how many times must their government be accused of murderous imperialism and wanton belligerence before they stop giving them support? Or should we treat them like children?

And it is quite possibly the most inept and stupid way of doing that. If you start by assuming that they are guilty, how do you expect they will even stop to think about the issue? Their evident, natural, human response will be to deny the issues.

This would maybe make sense if it were in any way possible for an American voter to simply deny their representatives actions.

And they are criminals because they are ignorant?They're ignorant because want to.

Dr. Rosenpenis

6th May 2008, 06:41

I don't see how you will win over people to this movement by calling them accessories to genocide.

Do you really think there's any hope for people who still vote for Democrats and Republicans after everything they've done? These voters couldn't say more clearly how much they love killing brown people, as far as I'm concerned.

RGacky3

6th May 2008, 07:41

Rosenpenis, you gonna answer my question homeboy? Or you too busy jacking off to an upside down American flag?

They're ignorant because want to.

As are everysingle other people in everysingle other country in the world. Just because their country can't do what the United States does in exploitation does'nt mean they would'nt or are not trying too.

But yeah, the people choose to have a corporate controled media, its not Capitalism, its the people, those dicks.

But how many times must their government be accused of murderous imperialism and wanton belligerence before they stop giving them support? Or should we treat them like children?

You forget, in America the Media is controlled by Corporations who have an interest in keeping the status quo. Hey remember Hitler? I guess that shows that German people are naturally evil and stupid huh?

These voters couldn't say more clearly how much they love killing brown people, as far as I'm concerned.

If I did'nt know any better I would have thought you were being ironic.

But back to my question jackass, is your theory universal? Are the Chineese people guilty too? And the Former Soviet citizens?

Dr. Rosenpenis

6th May 2008, 19:18

But yeah, the people choose to have a corporate controled media, its not Capitalism, its the people, those dicks.

Even the corporate-controlled media reports countless atrocities committed by their government.

You forget, in America the Media is controlled by Corporations who have an interest in keeping the status quo. Hey remember Hitler? I guess that shows that German people are naturally evil and stupid huh?

The people who voted for Hitler didn't know exactly what they were supporting, but they did know they were supporting a fascist. For electing a fascist, they're guilty.

But back to my question jackass, is your theory universal? Are the Chineese people guilty too? And the Former Soviet citizens?

I have no fucking clue what their voting record was like. Regardless, the people who committed atrocities were elected in a very indirect fashion and voters had limited access to their actions.

freakazoid

6th May 2008, 21:09

These voters couldn't say more clearly how much they love killing brown people, as far as I'm concerned.

Wow, and that just shows how ignorant you are on the subject. People vote for different reasons. And the people who are in favor of the war are not in favor because they "love killing brown people", they actually believe that what they are doing is right, well most, I'm pretty sure that there are some sick ones out there who are in it for racist reasons. And it is our job to teach on how that is wrong. Not just going around calling them racist murderers.

pusher robot

6th May 2008, 21:28

Don't bother. Dr. Penis is simply trolling OI.

6th May 2008, 21:37

Do you really think there's any hope for people who still vote for Democrats and Republicans after everything they've done? These voters couldn't say more clearly how much they love killing brown people, as far as I'm concerned.

With your contempt for working people you might as well become an anarchist or an MIMite.

freakazoid

6th May 2008, 21:57

With your contempt for working people you might as well become an anarchist

??

Dr. Rosenpenis

6th May 2008, 21:58

With your contempt for working people you might as well become an anarchist or an MIMite.

Maybe if I was contemptuous of working people, I would be more forgiving of Americans who vote for Democrats and Republicans. As it is, though, these voters have said again and again that they support politicians who murder millions of innocent workers. Maybe they said that for others reasons. Doesn't change the fact that they've said it in support of mass murderers.

Question: who is more sectarian, a leftist who says anarchists and Maoists have contempt for workers, or someone who holds Republicans and Democrats accountable for what their elected leaders have done and they have shown support for through the ballot?

freakazoid

6th May 2008, 22:02

As it is, though, these voters have said again and again that they support politicians who murder millions of innocent workers. Maybe they said that for others reasons. Doesn't change the fact that they've said it in support of mass murderers.

Have you thought that perhaps not everyone believes it is murder?

Dr. Rosenpenis

6th May 2008, 22:09

Don't bother. Dr. Penis is simply trolling OI.

The irony of that post is almost too obvious for me to have to point out, but I can't resist.

6th May 2008, 22:11

Maybe if I was contemptuous of working people, I would be more forgiving of Americans who vote for Democrats and Republicans. As it is, though, these voters have said again and again that they support politicians who murder millions of innocent workers. Maybe they said that for others reasons. Doesn't change the fact that they've said it in support of mass murderers.

So attacking workers is going to get them to come to your side? Your argument makes absolutely no sense.

Question: who is more sectarian, a leftist who says anarchists and Maoists have contempt for workers, or someone who holds Republicans and Democrats accountable for what their elected leaders have done and they have shown support for through the ballot?

The latter, most definitely.

pusher robot

6th May 2008, 22:56

The irony of that post is almost too obvious for me to have to point out, but I can't resist.

It's not ironic.

Phalanx

6th May 2008, 23:02

Question: who is more sectarian, a leftist who says anarchists and Maoists have contempt for workers, or someone who holds Republicans and Democrats accountable for what their elected leaders have done and they have shown support for through the ballot?Among active leftists, the first one. Among the working class, whom you're trying to win over, the second one, no doubt.

Honestly, you sound like a spoiled college kid. and noone is more out of touch with the working class than your type.

LuÃs Henrique

7th May 2008, 00:02

Agreed. But how many times must their government be accused of murderous imperialism and wanton belligerence before they stop giving them support? Or should we treat them like children?

This would maybe make sense if it were in any way possible for an American voter to simply deny their representatives actions.

They're ignorant because want to.

Your problem is that, to you, class struggle simply does not exist. Everything happens in a vacuum, and the parliamentary scene is the most important, if not the only, thing in politics. Thence you ask the wrong questions, come to the wrong conclusions, support the wrong causes, and generally make a fool of yourself.

Go organise yourself and take actual action, instead of parading yourself as the ultimate judge of other people's doings and misdoings.

Luís Henrique

RGacky3

7th May 2008, 05:20

I have no fucking clue what their voting record was like. Regardless, the people who committed atrocities were elected in a very indirect fashion and voters had limited access to their actions.

Well in the USSR the people voted in Stalin, so I guess they were for the Gulags, and the "Social Imperialism", and in China the people voted for their leaders too, So I guess the Chinese people want their country to rape china, send dissidents to prison, and oppress Nepal. So they are at fault as well.

Of coarse they could just not vote, infact they are more to blame because they only have one party to choose from, perhaps different people, but just one party. The United States has 2, both Capitalist Imperialist, but everynow and then one comes up slightly less dameging than the other.

In-fact, in a way it makes every Historical government that was ever imperialistic not responsible, it makes their people responsible, because for a country to be imperialistic it needs at least some consent from its people, and they could have always refused and revolted.

Your logic is like saying a guy who had to choose between saving 2 different people from drowning is guilty of murder for choosing one and not the other.

Dr. Rosenpenis

7th May 2008, 07:46

So attacking workers is going to get them to come to your side? Your argument makes absolutely no sense.

That wasn't my argument for why I think this will convince American voters to stop supporting Democrats and Republicans

Dr. Rosenpenis

7th May 2008, 07:57

Your problem is that, to you, class struggle simply does not exist. Everything happens in a vacuum, and the parliamentary scene is the most important, if not the only, thing in politics.

That's ridiculous. I am judging the actions of American voters in the context of the class struggle. Imperialism is the greatest adversary of workers today, and there are certain people who willingly and knowingly support the politicians who carry out these policies. These voters voluntarily and actively assume the class interests of international capital.

Dr. Rosenpenis

7th May 2008, 08:03

Well in the USSR the people voted in Stalin, so I guess they were for the Gulags, and the "Social Imperialism", and in China the people voted for their leaders too, So I guess the Chinese people want their country to rape china, send dissidents to prison, and oppress Nepal. So they are at fault as well.

Did you not even read the post you're replying to? I said that these leaders were not elected directly, voters had limited access to the candidate's actions, and they didn't know what to expect from these politicians, unlike American voters, who know exactly what Democratic and Republican presidents will do.

Your logic is like saying a guy who had to choose between saving 2 different people from drowning is guilty of murder for choosing one and not the other.

What?
So in that metaphor, the negligence to save one drowning person is imperialist war. The guy who chose to save one and not the other is the United States Government. The one who is left to drown is all the victims of American imperialism. The one who is saved is who exactly?

freakazoid

7th May 2008, 08:25

unlike American voters, who know exactly what Democratic and Republican presidents will do.

Not really.

That's ridiculous. I am judging the actions of American voters in the context of the class struggle. Imperialism is the greatest adversary of workers today, and there are certain people who willingly and knowingly support the politicians who carry out these policies. These voters voluntarily and actively assume the class interests of international capital.

And what do you suppose we should do about it. Because going around calling them murderers won't help to get them on our side.

RGacky3

7th May 2008, 08:47

Did you not even read the post you're replying to? I said that these leaders were not elected directly, voters had limited access to the candidate's actions, and they didn't know what to expect from these politicians, unlike American voters, who know exactly what Democratic and Republican presidents will do.

Niether are American presidents (Electoral College), but guess, according to your logic it does'nt matter, because the Soviet citizens were showing support.

Of coarse they knew waht their governemnt was doing, especially when their neighbors were getting arrested and dissapearing, or when their governments invade say, afghanistan, or Nepal. People arn't as ignorant as you think. So yeah, the people in those countreis are guilty, under your logic.

Also American voters don'g know exactly what Democratic and Republican presidents will do, although they all in general act in the interests of the Captalist class, they do things differently. I.E. some presidents prefered holding out the carrot to imperialize, others used the rod, the same motive, but it makes a difference. Some presidents will support some sort of Social Programs, others will not. Saying the American people knew George Bush was going to go into Iraq before they elected him is rediculous. Even during the second election, the media hyped up the terrorist threats and danger so much, people were afraid, and don't think your government would act differently.

What?
So in that metaphor, the negligence to save one drowning person is imperialist war. The guy who chose to save one and not the other is the United States Government. The one who is left to drown is all the victims of American imperialism. The one who is saved is who exactly? Today 06:57

Its obvious you can't think in principles, so I'll spell it out for you. The Metaphor is, on a small scale, one man letting a guy drown while saving another has to make a choice for a lesser evil, he is not guilty of the drowning, conversely many Americans see a political party in control as doing as a lesser evil, thus they are not guilty either. Its the principle of it, Americans don't vote for presidents because as you say "they like to kill brown people" (You douche bag), its because they sincearly think, that voting for one over the other will make a difference for the better, hopefully more peace, more social justice, more freedom. BTW its not negligence, negligence would be if you did'nt save anyone.

Saying Americans are responsible for the United States Imperialism is as stupid and ignorant as those who say Africa is in a poor state because black people are inferior, you ignore the entire makeup of the system and history.

Dr. Rosenpenis

7th May 2008, 17:36

Not really.

Which president in the past 100 years hasn't been an imperialist murderer?

And what do you suppose we should do about it. Because going around calling them murderers won't help to get them on our side.

What should the left do about it? Position itself in opposition to imperialist crimes.

Dr. Rosenpenis

7th May 2008, 17:54

Niether are American presidents (Electoral College)

It's practically direct. Voters don't vote on who will represent them in the electoral college, they vote for a presidential candidate, even though what they're doing is voting for an electoral college delegate. They know very well who they're voting for. Soviet citizens didn't really know that the people they were voting for would vote for people who would vote for people who would elect Stalin.

Of coarse they knew waht their governemnt was doing, especially when their neighbors were getting arrested and dissapearing, or when their governments invade say, afghanistan, or Nepal. People arn't as ignorant as you think. So yeah, the people in those countreis are guilty, under your logic.

They had much more limited access to such information than Americans do. And like I said, I don't know the voting records of these people to judge whether they reaffirmed their support for elected criminals after it had been revealed that they were criminals. In the US, though, we've seen that no matter how many times Democrats and Republicans are shown to be murderous fascist thugs, American citizens continue voting for them.

Also American voters don'g know exactly what Democratic and Republican presidents will do, although they all in general act in the interests of the Captalist class, they do things differently. I.E. some presidents prefered holding out the carrot to imperialize, others used the rod, the same motive, but it makes a difference. Some presidents will support some sort of Social Programs, others will not. Saying the American people knew George Bush was going to go into Iraq before they elected him is rediculous. Even during the second election, the media hyped up the terrorist threats and danger so much, people were afraid, and don't think your government would act differently.

Iraq is merely one manifestation of murderous imperialist policies. They're murdering people in various different places and have been long before the invasion of Iraq. All administrations in recent decades have used support for murderous right-wing governments and parties, "the rod", among other tactics to kill brown people. I think Americans can know exactly what to expect from their next leader

The Metaphor is, on a small scale, one man letting a guy drown while saving another has to make a choice for a lesser evil, he is not guilty of the drowning, conversely many Americans see a political party in control as doing as a lesser evil, thus they are not guilty either. Its the principle of it, Americans don't vote for presidents because as you say "they like to kill brown people" (You douche bag), its because they sincearly think, that voting for one over the other will make a difference for the better, hopefully more peace, more social justice, more freedom. BTW its not negligence, negligence would be if you did'nt save anyone.

O, I thought the metaphor was for the actions of the American government, not for its supporters. So, for example if Hillary Clinton becomes the potus, what will American voters have gained and lost with the metaphorical survival of Clinton at the expense of the drowning of McCain? In my opinion, nothing.

Saying Americans are responsible for the United States Imperialism[...]

That's definitely not what I'm saying. I'm saying they're guilty for supporting something that had been shown time and time again to involve the mass murder of innocent people.

7th May 2008, 18:23

That wasn't my argument for why I think this will convince American voters to stop supporting Democrats and Republicans

So you're going to call them murderers and then say something else to get them to come to your side?

That's ridiculous. I am judging the actions of American voters in the context of the class struggle.

No you're not, because judging them in the context of the class struggle includes analyzing and understanding the level of consciousness at the time and coming to a reasonable method of bringing them to a higher level of consciousness. Calling them accessories to genocide won't do that.

Imperialism is the greatest adversary of workers today

No, capitalism is the greatest adversary of workers today.

These voters voluntarily and actively assume the class interests of international capital.

And all workers do so as well by working for capitalists. What's your point?

What should the left do about it? Position itself in opposition to imperialist crimes.

Obviously, but that doesn't involve attacking workers and their allies. The job of Marxists is to point out that these problems are because of capitalism.

It's practically direct.

You really have no idea how the American electoral system works, then.

Bluetongue

7th May 2008, 19:06

And again, to Dr. Rosecoloredpenis

So, everyone who is socially conscious refuses to vote and what happens then? The neocons win. This isn't about making me feel good about myself. It's about dealing with complex issues, limited choices, and trying to make the world better. Not voting does not make the world a better place. Your "protest" is ignored. I'm surprised the Republicans don't fund your little message. They'd LOVE it if all the leftists boycotted the election.

You think the two party system is corrupt, so you sit at home, and we lose Roe vs. Wade. Are you not then responsible for the loss of abortion rights? Not voting does not in ANY WAY make you not responsible for who is elected.

Voting in the US is realpolitik.

Neither South africa nor Venezuela have socialist governments, I don't care what label different bourgeois parties give themselves, I am talking about real socialism, i.e. the abolition of private property under workers control.

Your definition of "democracy" is completely unmarxist. for a materialist, democracy has everything to do with economics. "democracy" means "rule of the people". unless all people collectively own the means of production, they do not "rule". Are you even aware of the term "ruling class"?

EDIT: and please don't talk to me in that patronising tone, I've forgotten more about Venezuela than you will ever know.

Sorry for the tone, guy. Nevertheless, I use Dictionary.com, not NewSpeak.

Dr. Rosenpenis

7th May 2008, 19:12

So you're going to call them murderers and then say something else to get them to come to your side?

I think that calling out their elected leaders for murder will make them rethink their positions on voting. I think that American voters will regret having been accessories to murder.

No you're not, because judging them in the context of the class struggle includes analyzing and understanding the level of consciousness at the time and coming to a reasonable method of bringing them to a higher level of consciousness. Calling them accessories to genocide won't do that.

First of all, stop using the term genocide because it has no place in this discussion.
The level of class consciousness of Americans who vote for Democrats and Republicans is nil due to a number of factors. But in the end, these voters are adults, who are responsible for their actions. Including electing mass murderers.

No, capitalism is the greatest adversary of workers today.

Imperialism is a manifestation of capitalism, so that goes without saying.

And all workers do so as well by working for capitalists. What's your point?

No, they don't. Working for a capitalist is completely different from voting for imperialist thugs.

Obviously, but that doesn't involve attacking workers and their allies. The job of Marxists is to point out that these problems are because of capitalism.
I have no doubts that this problem is caused by capitalism. But that doesn't mean that votes in support of fascist murderers mean nothing.

You really have no idea how the American electoral system works, then.

I have a fairly good idea. The votes cast by voters are direct for one candidate or another. The voters know exactly who they're supporting, unlike, for example, in the USSR, which what's his face brought up, where national leaders were elected by parliamentary bodies.

7th May 2008, 20:10

I think that calling out their elected leaders for murder will make them rethink their positions on voting.

This I can obviously agree with. Your claim that those that voted for these candidates are somehow responsible I cannot.

The level of class consciousness of Americans who vote for Democrats and Republicans is nil due to a number of factors. But in the end, these voters are adults, who are responsible for their actions. Including electing mass murderers.

Which is an anti-materialist position that doesn't take into account the level of consciousness and why consciousness is at that level. This is some kind of strange deterministic proposition that people are able to do anything and that consciousness does not matter.

Imperialism is a manifestation of capitalism, so that goes without saying.

I'm glad you realize that, but many groups consider "anti-imperialism" to automatically be anti-capitalist, and on that basis support any "anti-imperialist" organization or movement, which obviously is wrong. That is why I felt it was important to make that distinction.

No, they don't. Working for a capitalist is completely different from voting for imperialist thugs.

No it is not. Both are actions that willingly express support for the system.

freakazoid

7th May 2008, 21:31

BurnTheOliveTree

7th May 2008, 21:34

No, don't be so ridiculous. You utterly, utterly ignore the idea of voting pragmatically. You are not going to achieve shit by voting for some party that's ideologically pure but hasn't got a snowball's chance in hell. You are not going to achieve shit by not voting. You will achieve some piecemeal gains by voting democrat, not on the war or imperialism of course, but on domestic issues, and they are better than nothing.

Honestly, just get off your fucking high horse, you sound like a preacher. For anyone who actually wants to improve the conditions of the working class, these are serious considerations, unless you want to tell me the white house will be stormed tomorrow with armed militias.

-Alex

freakazoid

7th May 2008, 21:35

Umm... Why is my post not posting at the end of the thread?

freakazoid

7th May 2008, 22:00

unless you want to tell me the white house will be stormed tomorrow with armed militias.

One could only hope, :D

Dr. Rosenpenis

7th May 2008, 22:05

Your claim that those that voted for these candidates are somehow responsible I cannot.

Not "responsible", as that implies a totality of the guilt. But accessories as you put it, certainly.

Which is an anti-materialist position that doesn't take into account the level of consciousness and why consciousness is at that level. This is some kind of strange deterministic proposition that people are able to do anything and that consciousness does not matter.

Well, voters are able to vote for whoever they want. But yes, the objective material conditions are ultimately the culprit in the mass murders carried out by the US. But that doesn't mean that Americans shouldn't be expected to be minimally discerning voters. I'm not saying that American voters caused imperialism. But they have chosen to be accomplices.

No it is not. Both are actions that willingly express support for the system.

I don't see it that way at all. Working for a capitalist is a matter of survival for a most workers. Voting isn't.

BurnTheOliveTree

7th May 2008, 22:28

A Prayer is a hug wrapped in God's Love.

Ah, Tom, man. If you listen carefully I reckon you can hear the sound of your masculinity, weeping. ;)

-Alex

Bud Struggle

7th May 2008, 22:33

Commie fight. Does this belong on the OI? :D

Plagueround

7th May 2008, 22:37

Commie fight. Does this belong on the OI? :D

I kind of like you in a friendly nemesis kind of way, TomK. You're like Ayn Rand, except with the phallus she wished she had. :laugh:

RGacky3

7th May 2008, 22:37

But that doesn't mean that Americans shouldn't be expected to be minimally discerning voters. I'm not saying that American voters caused imperialism. But they have chosen to be accomplices.

Really? By Voting, of coasre they could not vote and give their governemnt a free hand.

I don't see it that way at all. Working for a capitalist is a matter of survival for a most workers. Voting isn't.

When one party threatens to take away retirement benefits, or something yeah it is.

Honestly, just get off your fucking high horse, you sound like a preacher. For anyone who actually wants to improve the conditions of the working class, these are serious considerations, unless you want to tell me the white house will be stormed tomorrow with armed militias.

I have to second that, this Penis guy is a self-rightious cock, a guy who does'nt live in the real world that has real issues and prefers too see things in a rediculously simplistic way, and a hypocritical way.

where national leaders were elected by parliamentary bodies.

They knew waht the Bolsheviks did during the revolution, they knew what Stalin did, yet they continued to support the Bolsheviks, they voted for them, directly, perhaps not the General Secretary, but for the party, the Soviet Citizens wanted to be repressed obviously, they supported their government.

I think that calling out their elected leaders for murder will make them rethink their positions on voting. I think that American voters will regret having been accessories to murder.

American voters have called out their leaders many many times, most Americans don't trust their government, but many still vote because it can make a difference. American voters don't regret being accessories to murder, because they are not accessories to murder. If that was the case every single republican government around can be blaimed on the voters. Whatever crime they do, be it small (repressing and killing their own people, or allowing the rape of their country by Capitalists) or big (Imperialism), can be blaimed on the people.

So in Brazil, what your government does, is on the voters sholders, sure its much less than what the United States does (only because it does'nt have the power), but what it does is still YOUR(Plural) fault.

Democrats and Republicans are shown to be murderous fascist thugs

Most Americans don't know the smaller stuff America does, because America does a good job at hiding it. What they do know, many times they are against. But that does'nt change the facts, the reality of the situation, that the Democrats and Republicans are they only 2 parties, and have things to worry about that may be affected by who ends up in power.

What your asking them to do, is forget their worries, forget pragmatism, and in a symbolic form of protest, stop voting, I say symbolic because it won't change a thing and infact make the government stronger, so that they won't be called acomplices to murder by preacher assholes like you.

I'm saying they're guilty for supporting something that had been shown time and time again to involve the mass murder of innocent people.

And so are the citizens of every other country, especially the USSR & China, remember the Parties had the support of theier people, and the people knew (unless they all had their heads in the sand).

what will American voters have gained and lost with the metaphorical survival of Clinton at the expense of the drowning of McCain? In my opinion, nothing.

Well maybe the war in Iraq will be toned down, saving some lives, perhaps health care will stop being privatized, somewhat.

Anyway you missunderstood my metaphor.

All I can say to Rosenpenis is get your head out of your ass, and live in the real world.

Bluetongue

7th May 2008, 23:05

In a word: realpolitik

American leftists vote for democrats because we don't want to end our lives living under a bridge or bleeding to death in the ER waiting room. Leftists not voting => American police state.

Bud Struggle

7th May 2008, 23:08

I kind of like you in a friendly nemesis kind of way, TomK. You're like Ayn Rand, except with the phallus she wished she had. :laugh:

I like you, too. My take on friendship is that of Gary Cooper's (I think) in High Noon: "Every man is my friend, unless he proves different." :)

freakazoid

8th May 2008, 00:04

testing

Dr. Rosenpenis

8th May 2008, 15:49

Really? By Voting, of coasre they could not vote and give their governemnt a free hand.

You honestly think that by voting, you're opposing the government more strongly than someone would by not voting? That's the single most nonsensical idea I've ever read in my life.

When one party threatens to take away retirement benefits, or something yeah it is.

So then you vote for the party that kills millions of people to save lives? There are other parties. The blame is general, not individual.

They knew waht the Bolsheviks did during the revolution, they knew what Stalin did, yet they continued to support the Bolsheviks, they voted for them, directly, perhaps not the General Secretary, but for the party, the Soviet Citizens wanted to be repressed obviously, they supported their government.

There were many factions within the communist party. I don't know who people voted for. The people who voted for known supporters of murderous policies, supported murderous policies and are guilty of supporting murderous policies. It's really quite simple.

American voters don't regret being accessories to murder, because they are not accessories to murder.

First you say that voting for Democrats and Republicans is important. Next you say that people who vote for Republicans and Democrats have nothing to do with what their elected politicians do. Get your shit straight.

If that was the case every single republican government around can be blaimed on the voters. Whatever crime they do, be it small (repressing and killing their own people, or allowing the rape of their country by Capitalists) or big (Imperialism), can be blaimed on the people.

No. I've said this a number of times already in this thread: American imperialism exists due to a number of factors totally unrelated to votes.

So in Brazil, what your government does, is on the voters sholders, sure its much less than what the United States does (only because it does'nt have the power), but what it does is still YOUR(Plural) fault.

This is ridiculous. The United States uses it's military and economic power to force other nations to comply with their unilateral interests. Brazil doesn't. Two completely different scenarios. And practically unrelated to election results and actual military power.

And so are the citizens of every other country

What the fuck are you talking about?

Bud Struggle

8th May 2008, 15:52

You honestly think that by voting, you're opposing the government more strongly than someone would by not voting? That's the single most nonsensical idea I've ever read in my life.So then you vote for the party that kills millions of people to save lives? There are other parties. The blame is general, not individual.There were many factions within the communist party. I don't know who people voted for. The people who voted for known supporters of murderous policies, supported murderous policies and are guilty of supporting murderous policies. It's really quite simple.First you say that voting for Democrats and Republicans is important. Next you say that people who vote for Republicans and Democrats have nothing to do with what their elected politicians do. Get your shit straight.No. I've said this a number of times already in this thread: American imperialism exists due to a number of factors totally unrelated to votes.This is ridiculous. The United States uses it's military and economic power to force other nations to comply with their unilateral interests. Brazil doesn't. Two completely different scenarios. And practically unrelated to election results and actual military power.What the fuck are you talking about?

Yea, all right about that stuff--but GREAT sig line! :thumbup:

Phalanx

8th May 2008, 17:37

This is ridiculous. The United States uses it's military and economic power to force other nations to comply with their unilateral interests. Brazil doesn't. Two completely different scenarios. And practically unrelated to election results and actual military power.

You may not be indirectly supporting an imperialist power, but you are supporting a police state.

Dr. Rosenpenis

8th May 2008, 17:39

How am I voluntarily supporting it and how is it a police state?

Bluetongue

8th May 2008, 18:45

Since this is the 4th time I've posted this, I'm assuming you have no answer. What is the end result of your policy?

So, everyone who is socially conscious refuses to vote and what happens then? The neocons win. This isn't about making me feel good about myself. It's about dealing with complex issues, limited choices, and trying to make the world better. Not voting does not make the world a better place. Your "protest" is ignored. I'm surprised the Republicans don't fund your little message. They'd LOVE it if all the leftists boycotted the election.

You think the two party system is corrupt, so you sit at home, and we lose Roe vs. Wade. Are you not then responsible for the loss of abortion rights? Not voting does not in ANY WAY make you not responsible for who is elected.

Voting in the US is realpolitik.

LuÃs Henrique

8th May 2008, 18:51

How am I voluntarily supporting it

What are you doing to change things here? If you are doing nothing, then how are you not guilty, under your own reasoning?

and how is it a police state?

Well, it certainly isn't - but it certainly is a bourgeois State, whose government supports US imperialism.

So, what do you have to say in your defence, before we pass you trough the guillotine you have assembled yourself?

Luís Henrique

Dr. Rosenpenis

8th May 2008, 19:00

What are you doing to change things here?Not too much, I'm just an active member of my student union.

If you are doing nothing, then how are you not guilty, under your own reasoning?Because according to my reasoning, people who actively support parties that are known to conduct murderous imperialist wars are guilty of compliance with imperialist crimes. People who finance these parties are also, obviously, guilty. People who simply live in countries where the government carries out imperialist wars or collaborate with other governments which carry out imperialist wars, are not guilty. They haven't done anything.

Dr. Rosenpenis

8th May 2008, 19:03

What is the end result of your policy?

I'm not preaching policies. I'm telling people who vote for mass murderers that they're supporting mass murderers.

So, everyone who is socially conscious refuses to vote and what happens then?

I'm not telling people to necessarily not vote.

freakazoid

8th May 2008, 19:07

Because according to my reasoning, people who actively support parties that are known to conduct murderous imperialist wars, among other people, are guilty of compliance with imperialist crimes.

I don't remember the Dems supporting the "war" with Iraq. So why call them murderers?

Dr. Rosenpenis

8th May 2008, 19:09

the war in the balkans, then
support for Israeli terrorism
etc.

pusher robot

8th May 2008, 19:16

I'm not preaching policies. I'm telling people who vote for mass murderers that they're supporting mass murderers.

No you're not, you are accusing them of committing murder, i.e., you are calling them murderers. Personally. I get the feeling you don't comprehend the gravity most people attach to this.

There is a difference between telling someone they are wrong, and telling them they are guilty.

Dr. Rosenpenis

8th May 2008, 19:24

I'm telling them that they're in compliance with mass murder

It's supposed to be a serious accusation because American imperialism is extremely serious and I find that the support it enjoys among American voters is also a very serious problem

pusher robot

8th May 2008, 19:44

Dr. Rosenpenis

8th May 2008, 19:48

They're accomplices, which means they're indirectly guilty

pusher robot

8th May 2008, 19:51

Here's something else to chew on: true, people don't have to vote. But they do have to pay taxes on pain of imprisonment or death. Taxes are a vastly more substantive form of support than the act of voting, so your whole thesis is silly. It is not the act of voting but the paying of taxes that makes it possible for the state to do anything, and people are not free to chose to not pay taxes, thus adjudging them "guilty" is idiotic. In fact, the tiny amount of control over what their taxes are used for can only be exercised when they do vote, so you are actually judging them guilty for doing the one thing that can actually make any difference.

Do you pay taxes? If you do, you are financing whatever your government does. Thus by your own standards you are yourself guilty.

Dr. Rosenpenis

8th May 2008, 20:15

That's a fairly good point. But the point I'm making is that people who voluntarily give murderous governments their support via the ballot are voluntarily supporting murder. Tax payers aren't voluntarily supporting murder. Leftists, at the very least, should not volunteer to give imperialist mass murderers political support.

But I've long-since believed that a mass boycott of taxes would be a great agenda for any leftist party.

Robert

8th May 2008, 20:34

they're in compliance with mass murder

complicit maybe?

Anyway, if I you don't want to pay taxes, you may as well grab your bombs and start the revolution today, for you can't buy gasoline, clothing , or (in some states)
food, without paying taxes. Also get ready to follow Wesley Snipes to federal prison.

Also know that there are some saints in our society, like child protective service workers, who depend on taxes for their meager salaries. Surely you want them to be paid(?)

LuÃs Henrique

8th May 2008, 20:43

I don't remember the Dems supporting the "war" with Iraq. So why call them murderers?
Eh?! How many representatives voted against the Iraqi war in the house? Two? Three? And one of them, Ron Paul, is/was a Republican.

Luís Henrique

Edit: I evidently confused the "war" on Iraq with the "war" on Afghanistan. But the point stands. Only 133 representatives voted against the Iraqi adventure. Six of them were Republican and one independent. That means only 126 Democrats voted against war in House. In Senate, only 21 Democrats opposed the "war" - not even the majority of Democrat Senators.

And the "war" against Afghanistan was also murderous. All but two or three House Democrats favoured it.

RGacky3

9th May 2008, 02:36

You honestly think that by voting, you're opposing the government more strongly than someone would by not voting? That's the single most nonsensical idea I've ever read in my life.

In practical terms yes, because if you don't vote they have no image to protect, they don't have to answer at all to voters, and they have to try and be better than the oposition party. Not voting they don't ahve to worry about any of that and they can persue imperialism with even more vigor.

So then you vote for the party that kills millions of people to save lives? There are other parties. The blame is general, not individual.

Oh really, other parties? None that have a chance in hell of achieving even one electoral delegate, so in practical terms, no there are not other parties when it comes to federal elections. So people will vote for the party that will do less Damage.

Also, its not the party that kills millions, its the system, idiot. That belief that its the party shows you don't know much at all about the way modern imperialism works, and believe me, if a green party president, or even a socialist party president was voted in, not much would change in the big scheme of things, i.e. systemically. These are simple aspects of modern Capitalist States/Imperialism that you don't seam to understand.

There were many factions within the communist party. I don't know who people voted for. The people who voted for known supporters of murderous policies, supported murderous policies and are guilty of supporting murderous policies. It's really quite simple.

Well, there are many factions of the Democratic and republican parties, you don't know who people voted for here either (other than for the president, as far as I know you might follow senetorial or house elections, and state and city elections). And the people in the USSR knew, what Lenin did, and Stalin, yet they continued support of the Soviet party, so just say it, "The Soviet People are responsible for the crimes of the USSR." Either that or your a hypocrite, oh and you also have to say "The Chinnese people are responsible for the crimes of their government." Or you are a hyprocrite.

Also supporting muderous policies, and voting for candidates are two different things. Voting is a pragmatic action, not an ideological one.

This is ridiculous. The United States uses it's military and economic power to force other nations to comply with their unilateral interests. Brazil doesn't. Two completely different scenarios. And practically unrelated to election results and actual military power.

Your right, but Brazil supports the United States in its Imperialism, you guys voted for your government, thus you are also responsible. So is every other government that is complient with the United States and its people. Plus you ARE also responsible for what your governmnet does in its own country.

No. I've said this a number of times already in this thread: American imperialism exists due to a number of factors totally unrelated to votes.

Good point, thus voters are not to blaime.

First you say that voting for Democrats and Republicans is important. Next you say that people who vote for Republicans and Democrats have nothing to do with what their elected politicians do. Get your shit straight.

I'll get it straight.

ehem: 1. People voting for Democrats and Republicans view it as important because it effects real thinsg that can effect their lives as well as others in other countries.

2. They are not responsible for what their elected politicians do because they have no control over that, AMERICA IS NOT A DEMOCRACY.

Because according to my reasoning, people who actively support parties that are known to conduct murderous imperialist wars are guilty of compliance with imperialist crimes.

I would season your reasoning with a little more information, thinking and reasoning, because right know your reasoning is dangerously simplistic drawing huge conclusions while omiting tons and tons of factors.

:cursing: , Unfortunately Dr. Rosenpenis, your gonna have to learn to think before you make vast simplistic and idiotic statements, because people will hold you to it.

Dr. Rosenpenis

9th May 2008, 03:08

In practical terms yes, because if you don't vote they have no image to protect, they don't have to answer at all to voters, and they have to try and be better than the oposition party. Not voting they don't ahve to worry about any of that and they can persue imperialism with even more vigor.

Then vote for another party.

Oh really, other parties? None that have a chance in hell of achieving even one electoral delegate, so in practical terms, no there are not other parties when it comes to federal elections. So people will vote for the party that will do less Damage.

If people vote for them, they have a chance. I said this before, the blame is general, not personal.

Also, its not the party that kills millions, its the system, idiot. That belief that its the party shows you don't know much at all about the way modern imperialism works, and believe me, if a green party president, or even a socialist party president was voted in, not much would change in the big scheme of things, i.e. systemically. These are simple aspects of modern Capitalist States/Imperialism that you don't seam to understand.

The parties could stop it. Jimmy Carter's administration wasn't too murderous, and he wasn't even of a different party. The premise of this thread is that these two political parties hire the advisers and finance the politicians who carry out mass murder. Regardless of the system, the people doing the deed are the parties. And Americans have shown these parties nothing but enormous support. That's my beef.

Well, there are many factions of the Democratic and republican parties, you don't know who people voted for here either (other than for the president, as far as I know you might follow senetorial or house elections, and state and city elections). And the people in the USSR knew, what Lenin did, and Stalin, yet they continued support of the Soviet party, so just say it, "The Soviet People are responsible for the crimes of the USSR." Either that or your a hypocrite, oh and you also have to say "The Chinnese people are responsible for the crimes of their government." Or you are a hyprocrite.

Are you just being obtuse to tick me off?

The Democratic Party and the Republican Party, regardless of faction (not that either have many factions), supports belligerent foreign policies. There may be a few exceptions, like maybe Dennis Kucinich, but when faced with the choice, the American voters turned him down too, in favor of two war-mongering imperialist murderers. The Soviet and Chinese Communist Parties, though, were the only parties in these two countries, and therefore they spanned a wide variety of viewpoints. And I don't know who the voters supported.

Your right, but Brazil supports the United States in its Imperialism, you guys voted for your government, thus you are also responsible. So is every other government that is complient with the United States and its people. Plus you ARE also responsible for what your governmnet does in its own country.

Honestly, man. How many times do I have to explain?
Only the people who vote for the current government are guilty. And the current Brazilian administration hasn't really supported the United States in murdering people. At most, they supported some shitty free trade laws and such. And if UN peacekeeping can be said to be US imperialism, which it arguably can, but I wouldn't, then the Brazilian government is also guilty of murdering people. And also the PT isn't widely-known to be a bunch of fascist thugs like the Democratic and Republican parties.

Good point, thus voters are not to blaime.

They're to blame for supporting murder.

1. People voting for Democrats and Republicans view it as important because it effects real thinsg that can effect their lives as well as others in other countries.

2. They are not responsible for what their elected politicians do because they have no control over that, AMERICA IS NOT A DEMOCRACY.

If they have no control over what politicians do, why vote at all?

freakazoid

9th May 2008, 03:32

If they have no control over what politicians do, why vote at all?

In hopes that who they vote for will do what they say and implement the changes that they believe in. But once voted in the President doesn't have to do what the voters want.

Zurdito

9th May 2008, 03:43

Sorry for the tone, guy. Nevertheless, I use Dictionary.com, not NewSpeak.

apology accepted.

I don't advocate newspeak, just marxist definitions. socialism is not reforms + nationalisations. socialism is not higher taxes. socialism is not a welfare state. socialism is the result of a revolution by the working class to end capitalism and nationalise the economy under workers control, as part of a transition to a stateless society. this isn't happening in any of the countries you mentioned. unfortunately.

Dr. Rosenpenis

9th May 2008, 15:54

In hopes that who they vote for will do what they say and implement the changes that they believe in.

Let's take the upcoming election, then. Clinton, Obama, and McCain all openly state that they will murder thousands of innocent people. What is anyone hoping for? Americans who want change should vote for anyone but the candidates of these two parties.

Phalanx

9th May 2008, 16:16

Most people vote the way they do because of the media. The media doesn't show the politicians that would make a difference in a positive light, or any light at all. The fact that only the politicians willing to keep the status quo are the only ones running isn't surprising at all.

Fact is, except for a few examples in history, human progress takes time. So instead of whining about reform sitting on your computer you could actually go out and make a difference.

Vanguard1917

9th May 2008, 17:38

socialism is the result of a revolution by the working class to end capitalism and nationalise the economy under workers control, as part of a transition to a stateless society.

Under workers' control, yes. But, of course, workers' control means a lot more than mere nationalisation of the economy - something which is in no way inherently progressive from a socialist perspective.

As to the ridiculous assertions of this 'Rosenpenis', anti-capitalists cannot simply blame the masses for supporting the parties of the ruling class. The point is to put forward an alternative which can win over the working class.

Bluetongue

9th May 2008, 17:46

Let's take the upcoming election, then. Clinton, Obama, and McCain all openly state that they will murder thousands of innocent people. What is anyone hoping for? Americans who want change should vote for anyone but the candidates of these two parties.

References, please.

You openly do not care that the result of what you advocate would be a far right USA? A huge surge of imperialism and the complete disenfranchisement of the left?

I quit voting for 3rd parties in 2000. Bush won by a narrow margin while I voted Green. Interpretation: President Bush won because I decided that my principles were more important than the realpolitik.

Dr. Rosenpenis

9th May 2008, 19:32

How are the left enfranchised now in the US?!!

And my reference is that fact that those three politicians that I have cited all plan on continuing to wage war in Iraq and to fund the murderous State of Israel.
All three also favor free trade agreements.
Not to mention the fact that they all also plan on continuing to uphold racist and murderous US law enforcement.

Dr. Rosenpenis

9th May 2008, 19:42

anti-capitalists cannot simply blame the masses for supporting the parties of the ruling class. The point is to put forward an alternative which can win over the working class.

I'm not blaming "the masses", I'm blaming most of the American electorate, which is very different. I'm not saying we shouldn't try to win over these class traitors, I'm just affirming the fact that they're class traitors and have chosen to support mass murder.

Bluetongue

9th May 2008, 19:48

And how does not voting change that? The end result is a far right US, some kind of hideous global "Pax Americana", probable expulsion of resident aliens from Latin America, persecution of American Muslims, end of abortion rights, end of gay rights, end of any hope of socialized medicine.

You are refusing to consider the end result of this policy. What do you hope to accomplish? Do you honestly think that there is no difference between a McCain presidency and a Clinton/Obama one? Between a neocon TOAD and a woman/African-immigrant? McCain favors war with IRAN!

Cthulhu 2008! Why vote for the lesser evil?

freakazoid

9th May 2008, 20:38

Let's take the upcoming election, then. Clinton, Obama, and McCain all openly state that they will murder thousands of innocent people. What is anyone hoping for? Americans who want change should vote for anyone but the candidates of these two parties.

They didn't actually say that they were going to murder thousands of innocent people. Plus some people actually think that we are doing good over there. What we should do is try to explain to them how it is wrong, not go around casting blame.

pusher robot

9th May 2008, 20:46

Let's take the upcoming election, then. Clinton, Obama, and McCain all openly state that they will murder thousands of innocent people. What is anyone hoping for? Americans who want change should vote for anyone but the candidates of these two parties.

This ties in with the post of mine all the way back on page 1 that you never bothered replying to: you are ignoring the fact that whatever choice we make, people will die as a result.

Dr. Rosenpenis

9th May 2008, 21:38

This ties in with the post of mine all the way back on page 1 that you never bothered replying to: you are ignoring the fact that whatever choice we make, people will die as a result.

The difference is that 130,000,000 Americans won't be supporting that murder. I think that means a lot. I would even venture to say that, given the recent history of these two parties, the American voters ask for mass murder when they vote for Democrats and Republicans.

pusher robot

9th May 2008, 21:45

The difference is that 130,000,000 Americans won't be supporting that murder. I think that means a lot. I would even venture to say that, given the recent history of these two parties, the American voters ask for mass murder when they vote for Democrats and Republicans.

I honestly do not understand the reasoning here. So presumably, if the U.S. kills somebody, that's somehow worse than them getting killed by someone else.

How far are you willing to take this? If the U.S. could kill 1 person to save 10,000 who would die if we did nothing, should we not do it? Would we bear no responsibility at all for the dead 10,000? How about 100 to save 10,000? 1000? 9000? Does it matter if the ones who get killed are good guys or bad guys?

RGacky3

10th May 2008, 05:28

If people vote for them, they have a chance. I said this before, the blame is general, not personal.

American has essencially a 2 party system, you can't say 'the blame is general.' because you said 'Americans who vote for Democrats and Republicans are indirectly guilty of mass muder.' Voting is an individual act, you can't generalize blame, people vote for specific reasons, they don't vote for third parties for specific reasons (most of the time they can't.)

The parties could stop it. Jimmy Carter's administration wasn't too murderous, and he wasn't even of a different party. The premise of this thread is that these two political parties hire the advisers and finance the politicians who carry out mass murder. Regardless of the system, the people doing the deed are the parties. And Americans have shown these parties nothing but enormous support. That's my beef.

Well you just said it, Jimmy Carter's was'nt so bad, (according to you), thats why people vote, to hopefully lessen the damage.

Te parties are just doing their classes will, if they did'nt they would'nt be in power. If it was another party in power with the same system they would act generally the same way.

Enormous support? The people you see on TV waving flags chanting Clinton or Obama or McCain are a vast Minority, Americans are generally very non-political, most have just given up.

The Soviet and Chinese Communist Parties, though, were the only parties in these two countries, and therefore they spanned a wide variety of viewpoints. And I don't know who the voters supported.

The Soviet and Chinese Communist parties spanned an extremely narrow viewpoint, more so than American politics, Democratic Centrism made sure of it, and you do know who the voters supported because they voted in their leaders, so they supported the people in power.

No you might say "Ohh by the USSR and China wern't real Democracies." Oh really, you don't say, well there's your answer, niether is the US.

If they have no control over what politicians do, why vote at all?

Like has been said a million times, lesser evil.

Only the people who vote for the current government are guilty.

Ohhh, IC, because the past ones were so much better.

American voters ask for mass murder when they vote for Democrats and Republicans.

Are you serious? You think thats what Americans are thinking at the polling booth? You need to get your head out of your ass. I've been accused before of being idealistic, but you get the cake.

And my reference is that fact that those three politicians that I have cited all plan on continuing to wage war in Iraq and to fund the murderous State of Israel.
All three also favor free trade agreements.
Not to mention the fact that they all also plan on continuing to uphold racist and murderous US law enforcement

Your right, the Mexican people are assholes, not to mention the british, Australians, ohh Colombians get the cake, Russian, and so and so forth.

The only difference is America has the means for greater imperialism than the rest, does'nt mean they are all guilty (Using your twisted logic).

I'm not blaming "the masses", I'm blaming most of the American electorate, which is very different. I'm not saying we shouldn't try to win over these class traitors, I'm just affirming the fact that they're class traitors and have chosen to support mass murder

No your blaming the masses, even if most of them don't vote, most know people that do, and identify with them, and not dickheads like you. If you want to call them class traitors than fine. But don't expect anyone to take you seriously.

They arn't class traitors, infact most working class people in America worry about working class issues, the concept of 'class traitor' that you and many leninist use is rediculous and totalitarian, a class traitor is a scab, not someone trying to make things slightly better in his country by voting, for a lesser evil.

Actually I'd call you a class traitor for blaiming the people for what the system is responsible for, not only a class traitor, but an idiot.

Dr. Rosenpenis

10th May 2008, 15:04

I honestly do not understand the reasoning here. So presumably, if the U.S. kills somebody, that's somehow worse than them getting killed by someone else.

How far are you willing to take this? If the U.S. could kill 1 person to save 10,000 who would die if we did nothing, should we not do it? Would we bear no responsibility at all for the dead 10,000? How about 100 to save 10,000? 1000? 9000? Does it matter if the ones who get killed are good guys or bad guys?

What the fuck are you talking about?

Dr. Rosenpenis

10th May 2008, 15:24

American has essencially a 2 party system, you can't say 'the blame is general.' because you said 'Americans who vote for Democrats and Republicans are indirectly guilty of mass muder.' Voting is an individual act, you can't generalize blame, people vote for specific reasons, they don't vote for third parties for specific reasons (most of the time they can't.)

The blame is general because the general voting public manifests itself in favor of these two parties. It's not a matter of what one person can do, but of what ~130 million American voters can do.

Well you just said it, Jimmy Carter's was'nt so bad, (according to you), thats why people vote, to hopefully lessen the damage.

If they wanted anything to change, they wouldn't vote for the Democratic or Republican Parties. I think that's resoundingly obvious to everyone except you.

Te parties are just doing their classes will, if they did'nt they would'nt be in power. If it was another party in power with the same system they would act generally the same way.

This is very likely, and why I don't blame all the people who have voted for governments that turned out to be murderous, but specifically American voters, who have voted for Democrats and Republicans again and again, despite both parties having shown themselves to be bloodthirsty mass murderers.

Enormous support? The people you see on TV waving flags chanting Clinton or Obama or McCain are a vast Minority, Americans are generally very non-political, most have just given up.

Enormous support. Yes. In 2004, 99% of voters voted for either Kerry or Bush. That's enormous support.

The Soviet and Chinese Communist parties spanned an extremely narrow viewpoint, more so than American politics, Democratic Centrism made sure of it, and you do know who the voters supported because they voted in their leaders, so they supported the people in power.

They voted for local leaders. The election of national leaders, who were responsible for the said atrocities, was indirect.

Like has been said a million times, lesser evil.

The lesser evil is not less evil. They murder just as much, if maybe not more. And if they can't control what the politicians do, how are the politicians supposed to be less evil?

Ohhh, IC, because the past ones were so much better.

No, and I think I've made that overwhelmingly clear. Those who I hold guilty are the ones who have voted for the current administration at any given time that a murderous administration is in power.

Are you serious? You think thats what Americans are thinking at the polling booth? You need to get your head out of your ass. I've been accused before of being idealistic, but you get the cake.

Yes, I'm being serious.
There's no idealism there.
"I want Hillary Clinton to be president" in other words means "I want some brown people to be mercilessly slaughtered." Even if the voters don't know it.

Your right, the Mexican people are assholes, not to mention the british, Australians, ohh Colombians get the cake, Russian, and so and so forth.

British voters, no doubt.
I don't know about the others, though.

The only difference is America has the means for greater imperialism than the rest, does'nt mean they are all guilty (Using your twisted logic).

That is far from the only difference. France has the capacity to nuke hundreds of millions of people, but they don't.
I'm not saying that's because of the voters.

No your blaming the masses, even if most of them don't vote, most know people that do, and identify with them, and not dickheads like you.

Most of "the masses" don't identify with American voters. Sorry.

freakazoid

10th May 2008, 18:35

This is very likely, and why I don't blame all the people who have voted for governments that turned out to be murderous, but specifically American voters, who have voted for Democrats and Republicans again and again, despite both parties having shown themselves to be bloodthirsty mass murderers.

The party doesn't necessarily equal the president. That is why there are many different nominees for each party before one is even picked.

"I want Hillary Clinton to be president" in other words means "I want some brown people to be mercilessly slaughtered." Even if the voters don't know it.

No. Just.... no.

Bluetongue

10th May 2008, 19:08

The lesser evil is not less evil. They murder just as much, if maybe not more. And if they can't control what the politicians do, how are the politicians supposed to be less evil?

You contend that there is absolutely no difference between a Republican and a Democratic American government? That it will make no difference whatsoever in foreign policy. If voting Dem rather then Rep or Ind will save even ONE life, it's my moral duty to do so. The Dems will withdraw faster from Iraq (though, in the long run, I'm not sure that will save lives) and will not rattle sabers with Iran or Russia. The Dems will more likely put through a comprehensive health care plan, also saving lives.

Do you REALLY want a far-right America? I demand that you answer this, as it is the only possible outcome of your policy.

RGacky3

10th May 2008, 19:59

If they wanted anything to change, they wouldn't vote for the Democratic or Republican Parties. I think that's resoundingly obvious to everyone except you.

THEY, is made up of individuals, that realize that they live in a 2 party system, and that know that they should probably vote for someone that will do less damage, rather than a 3rd party, because voting for a third party will be a wasted vote, most places don't even allow the third party anyway.

You can't blame the general voters, because the general voters are made up of individuals that make individual desicions based on what exists now.

This is very likely, and why I don't blame all the people who have voted for governments that turned out to be murderous, but specifically American voters, who have voted for Democrats and Republicans again and again, despite both parties having shown themselves to be bloodthirsty mass murderers.

Most governemtns that turned out to be murderous did'nt so so suddenly without warning. If you lay the blaim on Americans again, its everyone.

btw democrats and republicans are not bloodthirsty mass murderers, they are protectors of profit and priviledge, like every other government out there (excepting perhaps a few).

Enormous support. Yes. In 2004, 99% of voters voted for either Kerry or Bush. That's enormous support.

AMERICA HAS A 2 PARTY SYSTEM.

They voted for local leaders. The election of national leaders, who were responsible for the said atrocities, was indirect.

They voted for a political party who's past they were aware of, how does it make a difference, your blaiming people who vote for a party in the United States.

Yes, I'm being serious.
There's no idealism there.
"I want Hillary Clinton to be president" in other words means "I want some brown people to be mercilessly slaughtered." Even if the voters don't know it.

Bullshit, utter horrible bullshit. What it means jackass is "I don't want McCain to take away my retirement." If you can't see that, I suggest coming to America and asking peoples opinion on politics, instead of making huge statements based on jackass self-rightous sophistry.

The lesser evil is not less evil. They murder just as much, if maybe not more. And if they can't control what the politicians do, how are the politicians supposed to be less evil?

Like was said before, some politicians prefer imperialism through economic means or diplomatic means rather than force, I think thats somewhat less evil. And yeah the lesser evil is less damaging.

British voters, no doubt.
I don't know about the others, though.

Yes you do, you know waht the elected governemtns in those countries have done and continue doing.

That is far from the only difference. France has the capacity to nuke hundreds of millions of people, but they don't.
I'm not saying that's because of the voters.

Your an idiot, I suggest spending a couple years reading about geo-politics and todays globalized world and then comeback and talk, until then you can either shut up, or continue looking like an idiotic jackass.

France not nuking hundreds of millions of people is not showing that they are some how better than the United States, trust me, if they could wield the global authority that the US does they would, and they did when they could.

Most of "the masses" don't identify with American voters. Sorry.

You know this how? How do you even know what American voters think life, obviously you don't, you think they jsut want too kill brown people, hell even the brown ones.

Red Equation

10th May 2008, 23:28

even if you don't support, them someone else will... :closedeyes:

Dr. Rosenpenis

11th May 2008, 04:27

most places don't even allow the third party anyway.Evidence, please?

btw democrats and republicans are not bloodthirsty mass murderers, they are protectors of profit and priviledge, like every other government out there (excepting perhaps a few). As I've said many, many times, the problem I have with voters isn't what the government does, but that the government does it with overwhelming popular support.

AMERICA HAS A 2 PARTY SYSTEM.As far as I know, this doesn't force Americans to vote for Democrats and Republicans.

They voted for a political party who's past they were aware of, how does it make a difference, your blaiming people who vote for a party in the United States.I don't know that they were aware of it. And I certainly don't know that they were aware that the people they were voting for supported mass murderers. I simply don't know. And what's more, unlike in the US, Soviets had to vote by law. For Communist Party politicians, of course. So the fact that hey voted for a party that had been responsible for murder is in no way their fault.

Like was said before, some politicians prefer imperialism through economic means or diplomatic means rather than force, I think thats somewhat less evil. And yeah the lesser evil is less damaging.Democratic administrations have not killed less than Republican administrations. When faced with the choice of Democratic candidates who are against belligerent foreign policies versus mass murderers, American voters have given full support to the agenda of murder.

Yes you do, you know waht the elected governemtns in those countries have done and continue doing.You asked and I responded in regards to the voters, not the governments. I know that a lot of governments commit atrocities and we have already pronounced our position against these governments. My problem now is with the people who vote for mass-murderers.

France not nuking hundreds of millions of people is not showing that they are some how better than the United StatesYour lunatic, blind nationalism is showing.
I never said that France was better than the US. The point is that authority isn't directly related to murder. The US has the capacity to wield much more authority than France. But France has the capacity to murder even more people than the US even tries and they don't. Just because your country can kill hundreds of thousands of people every year, doesn't mean that there exists a mystical force that obligates it to. The American ruling class has chosen this path out of economic interest and the American people have welcomed the agenda of mass murder with open arms. They are not responsible for the murder, but they are guilty of voluntarily consenting to murderous policies.

pusher robot

11th May 2008, 04:47

The American ruling class has chosen this path out of economic interest and the American people have welcomed the agenda of mass murder with open arms.

You do realize that the U.S. has more nukes than France, right? If our goal was simply to murder people, we could have murdered every man, woman, and child in Iraq hundreds of times over.

Why haven't we?

I mean, if you're going to give France credit for being able to kill millions but not doing it, then we should get more credit for being able to kill billions but not doing it.

Right?

Dr. Rosenpenis

11th May 2008, 04:56

I'm not giving France any credit. I'm saying that historical accidents, material conditions, and a murderous ruling class don't force American voters to accept that its government has no choice but to conduct mass murder.

freakazoid

11th May 2008, 05:40

As I've said many, many times, the problem I have with voters isn't what the government does, but that the government does it with overwhelming popular support.

What is the current approval rating of the president right now?

pusher robot

11th May 2008, 06:02

What the fuck are you talking about?

I am trying to understand exactly what you position is.

As I understand it, you are making the following argument:

(P1) The United States government kills people.
(P2) Voters in the United States are responsible for acts of the United States government.
(L1) THEREFORE, voters in the United States are responsible for killing people.
(P3) FURTHERMORE, killing those people is evil.
(C1) Therefore, voters in the United States are evil.

Is this a fair statement of your argument?

Dejavu

11th May 2008, 09:19

I am trying to understand exactly what you position is.

As I understand it, you are making the following argument:

(P1) The United States government kills people.
(P2) Voters in the United States are responsible for acts of the United States government.
(L1) THEREFORE, voters in the United States are responsible for killing people.
(P3) FURTHERMORE, killing those people is evil.
(C1) Therefore, voters in the United States are evil.

Is this a fair statement of your argument?

Interesting, I'll wait for his response.

Dejavu

11th May 2008, 09:23

pusher robot

11th May 2008, 17:15

Pusher, he does have a point. Voters are at least indirectly responsible for the acts of the government. Because by voting, it shows that you give your endorsement to a government. While non voters who may also be people do not desire government have no choice but to accept government.

Does it? When I show up to the polls, there's only one government whose candidates I may vote for (disregarding for now the distinction between state and federal government.)

Dr. Rosenpenis

11th May 2008, 19:37

I am trying to understand exactly what you position is.

O
Because I got the impression that you were arguing that the US kills people by the boatloads in order to save lives.

As I understand it, you are making the following argument:

(P1) The United States government kills people.
(P2) Voters in the United States are responsible for acts of the United States government.
(L1) THEREFORE, voters in the United States are responsible for killing people.
(P3) FURTHERMORE, killing those people is evil.
(C1) Therefore, voters in the United States are evil.

Is this a fair statement of your argument?

No, not exactly.

American voters overwhelmingly support the Democratic and Republican Parties & the Democratic and Republican Parties are responsible for killing people, therefore American voters support murder

MarxSchmarx

12th May 2008, 06:54

Why can't the same be said of anybody who votes for any remotely reformist party in any developed country? I mean it's not like Royal Dutch Shell, Sony or the British Army are headquartered in nations with fine anti-imperialist traditions. :rolleyes:

Or for that matter, because most rulers around the world are corrupt, bourgeois doofuses that don't flinch at using murder to advance their class, why single out these two parties?

chimx

12th May 2008, 07:10

freakazoid

12th May 2008, 19:00

I plan on voting for a Democrat in the upcoming presidential elections.MURDERER!!! You just want to kill "brown" people.... :rolleyes:

ManyAntsDefeatSpiders

12th May 2008, 19:03

I plan on voting for a Democrat in the upcoming presidential elections.

May I ask why?

Bud Struggle

12th May 2008, 20:52

May I ask why?

I'm voting Democratic, too. I want Obama to win--he'd be a complete repackabing of America as a Third World looking Black Guy. America would still be the same country--what what's the World not going to love about our new Mascot?

He's my man! It's a great marketing repackaging of America. :thumbup1:

ManyAntsDefeatSpiders

12th May 2008, 20:55

Well you're excused Tom, but a self-professed anarchist is not!

Bud Struggle

12th May 2008, 20:58

Well you're excused Tom, but a self-professed anarchist is not!

Thank you Antsy. :)

Bluetongue

13th May 2008, 01:12

RGacky3

13th May 2008, 03:00

We vote Dem so that the Republicans won't win. How hard is that? A Republican America is MUCH worse for us and for the world and a Democratic America. It's the only way we have to affect our government - it's not much of a change, but it's better than nothing.

Its a simple ethical equation Rosenpenis just can't get.

American voters overwhelmingly support the Democratic and Republican Parties & the Democratic and Republican Parties are responsible for killing people, therefore American voters support murder

Look at history, as far as I know there is no exception to the rule that empires generally have the support (by support I mean the people arn't actively stopping them) of their people, thats across the board in history.

As far as I know, this doesn't force Americans to vote for Democrats and Republicans.

Its that or nothing, and something is generally better than nothing.

As I've said many, many times, the problem I have with voters isn't what the government does, but that the government does it with overwhelming popular support.

Voting is an extremly poor guage of support, so taking voting out of the question (You can't call voting support, given the reason we've explained why Americans vote), how does our government have overwhelming support?

I don't know that they were aware of it. And I certainly don't know that they were aware that the people they were voting for supported mass murderers. I simply don't know. And what's more, unlike in the US, Soviets had to vote by law. For Communist Party politicians, of course. So the fact that hey voted for a party that had been responsible for murder is in no way their fault.

What Law is that? about the citizens of the USSR being legally binded to vote? Also they could have voted against the party. Also the Soviet people knew what happend in their country, unless of coarse they had their head in a hole, like you seam to have.

Democratic administrations have not killed less than Republican administrations. When faced with the choice of Democratic candidates who are against belligerent foreign policies versus mass murderers, American voters have given full support to the agenda of murder.

Ummmm, yes they have killed less, entered less wars, and cut less social programs.

Quote:
most places don't even allow the third party anyway.
Evidence, please?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_party_%28United_States%29#Barriers_to_third_ party_success

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-party_system

I'm not digging up more evidence than that, because to pretty much anythinking man the 2 party system in the United States is pretty clear.

The point is that authority isn't directly related to murder. The US has the capacity to wield much more authority than France. But France has the capacity to murder even more people than the US even tries and they don't. Just because your country can kill hundreds of thousands of people every year, doesn't mean that there exists a mystical force that obligates it to. The American ruling class has chosen this path out of economic interest and the American people have welcomed the agenda of mass murder with open arms. They are not responsible for the murder, but they are guilty of voluntarily consenting to murderous policies.

You forget why the United States kills, too keep control over its empire, not just to kill, France does'nt have what America has, and it cannot imperialize what America can, it simply does'nt have the power. France can't invade a country without reprocussions like America can, thats just the way power works.

Americans do not concent to mass murder, what they consented to was stopping terrorists, (at least most of them), and the governemnt lied and did their own thing furthering their own goals.

America is has an Empire, france does'nt really, big difference.

Dr. Rosenpenis

13th May 2008, 16:20

Yes, the US has an institutional two-party system, but your links have not shown that Americans are not able to vote for third-party candidates.

Therefore, the murderous Democratic and Republican parties do have enormous support.

What Law is that? about the citizens of the USSR being legally binded to vote?

Compulsory voting law
look it up

Also they could have voted against the party.

There were no other parties. They could have voted for delegates of factions contrary to mass murder. For all I know, they did. After all, Soviet administrations did radically change ideological directions over its 80 years of existence much, much more than the US has in the past 80 years.

Ummmm, yes they have killed less, entered less wars, and cut less social programs.

I want evidence of this.
Democrats put the country in WWI, WWII, Vietnam, Balkans, supported war in Afghanistan, supported war in Iraq, supported war in Korea, bombed Libya
support Israeli terrorism
supported countless murderous military dictatorships in S. America
supported murderous terrorism against Cuba
I mean, how are they "less evil"?

Americans do not concent to mass murder, what they consented to was stopping terrorists, (at least most of them), and the governemnt lied and did their own thing furthering their own goals.

They could have not reelected Bush.

You forget why the United States kills, too keep control over its empire, not just to kill, France does'nt have what America has, and it cannot imperialize what America can, it simply does'nt have the power. France can't invade a country without reprocussions like America can, thats just the way power works.

I'm not disagreeing with this.
The fact is that American voters voluntarily support murder when they could not. And they can vote for third party candidates. You have not shown otherwise.

Bluetongue

13th May 2008, 21:03

They could have not reelected Bush.

And how would we accomplish this? By not voting?

mikelepore

13th May 2008, 21:52

The two-party system in the U.S. has the people locked in a behavioral loop. Vote for a Republican, but, next time, being angry about having the same social problems as before, vote for a Democrat. Next time, angry about having the same social problems as before, so vote for a Republican. Next time, angry about having the same social problems as before, so vote for a Democrat. Next time, angry about having the same social problems as before, so vote for a Republican. And each time people make this reflexive switch they don't remember why they previously switched in the opposite direction, which was due to the same frustrations as the ones they have now. Each time they think they have just come up with a brand new brainstorm. Meanwhile, historical progress is stalled, and people may keep orbiting in this same tight little circle for the next hundred years.

Dr. Rosenpenis

14th May 2008, 04:58

And how would we accomplish this? By not voting?

by not voting for him

Comrade Rage

14th May 2008, 05:12

Leftists not voting => American police state.Man...that ship has sailed!!:lol:

freakazoid

14th May 2008, 05:21

Democrats put the country in... WWII,

Are you saying we should of stayed out of WW2?

Bud Struggle

14th May 2008, 12:15

For all you non-Americans, here's a good video about how Americans put together their political consensus and decide on candidates for political office.

The Communists are even mentioned.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Mc3GQmGGms

Dr. Rosenpenis

14th May 2008, 15:44

Are you saying we should of stayed out of WW2?

Among other things, yes, I am saying that.

freakazoid

14th May 2008, 15:50

Even as an "isolationist" I believed it was right to enter into WW2.

Dr. Rosenpenis

14th May 2008, 16:03

pusher robot

14th May 2008, 16:07

Plus, Soviet imperialism was less nefarious than the American kind.

Of course, that's why they had to build that wall, to keep all those West Berliners from flooding into the Soviet imperialism zone.

Dr. Rosenpenis

14th May 2008, 16:15

That doesn't make sense.

pusher robot

14th May 2008, 16:28

That doesn't make sense.

Precisely!

Phalanx

14th May 2008, 17:02

WWII paved the way for US imperialism, so it gets a strong, resounding "no" from me. The Soviets took care of the nazis anyways. It also paved the way for Soviet imperialism, but I think the Soviet role was more essential than the American role. Plus, Soviet imperialism was less nefarious than the American kind.

Comparing the conflicts the two supported I don't think it's safe to say either one is less 'nefarious'. Besides, if the US didn't get involved, the Japanese could repeat the Rape of Nanjing several hundred times over.

Dr. Rosenpenis

14th May 2008, 17:49

Precisely!

It doesn't make sense to judge Soviet imperialism by the fact that West Berliners didn't want to go to East Berlin.

pusher robot

14th May 2008, 18:23

It doesn't make sense to judge Soviet imperialism by the fact that West Berliners didn't want to go to East Berlin.

Why? Do people not try to avoid that which is "nefarious?"

Dr. Rosenpenis

15th May 2008, 16:58

Imperialism cannot be judged by how much people want to go to countries under the sphere of influence of said imperialist power. Regardless, the US exerts imperialism over a slew of countries that are total shitholes. For instance, this one.

Phalanx

15th May 2008, 17:14

Well, if East Berliners are willing to risk their lives to cross, wouldn't that mean that East Germany was kind of a shithole compared to the West? Taking a look at the regimes the USSR supported, I honestly can't see how you can say one is 'worse' than the other. Both were bad for the international proletariat. Although the USSR initially did have a positive role in international revolution, by the time they were supporting regimes like Mengistu in Ethiopia they were completely corrupted.

Dr. Rosenpenis

15th May 2008, 19:38

Bluetongue

15th May 2008, 20:02

by not voting for him

You are willfully blind. In the US, we vote AGAINST people. Honestly, in the upcoming election, would you prefer that all American leftists

a)stay home and don't vote

or

b)vote democrat

That is, do you prefer a McCain presidency? Are you willing to take responsibility for that? I'm NOT.

Dr. Rosenpenis

15th May 2008, 22:29

I think it makes next to no difference if Obama or Clinton or McCain wins

Phalanx

15th May 2008, 22:35

The United States supported and support more regimes that repressed more working-class movements, killed more people for private capital, supported more fascist thugs, and directly probably killed more innocent people around the world. The US also was responsible for oppressing more third-world countries, blocking development, and generally making them into shitholes.

The United States supported politicians who slaughtered people and sold their countries to Americans. The Soviets supported nationalists and killed some East Europeans. On the whole, the US was responsible for much more strife, misery, and murder.

You think that the USSR's foreign policy mistakes were limited to Eastern Europe? The USSR didn't produce 100 million AK 47s out of goodwill towards the international proletariat. They wanted their sphere of influence to increase by funding horribly brutal and corrupt leaders in the third world, just like the US did.

It's like Oceania versus Eurasia. They're no different from each other, they're simply empires wanting to maintain their power in the world.

Dr. Rosenpenis

15th May 2008, 23:14

The fact that they wanted to increase their sphere of influence says absolutely nothing. That's an inherent trait among imperialist powers. Still, there's no question that the Soviet Union was less harmful to the international proletariat than the United States was.

Bud Struggle

16th May 2008, 01:13

freakazoid

16th May 2008, 01:17

I think it makes next to no difference if Obama or Clinton or McCain wins

Yup, either way it is bad for gun owners.

RGacky3

16th May 2008, 01:27

I think it makes next to no difference if Obama or Clinton or McCain wins

If McCaine cuts medicare and stops funding to school, it does, maybe not too you it does'nt.

Still, there's no question that the Soviet Union was less harmful to the international proletariat than the United States was.

No Question, but thats just because it had less power, not because it was morally superior.

You think that the USSR's foreign policy mistakes were limited to Eastern Europe?

They wern't mistakes, I hate when people talk about the USSR's "Mistakes," its not as if they tripped, they were planned, calculated and done with the intent of increasing their power over people.

Dr. Rosenpenis

16th May 2008, 02:13

How did they have less power? They actually the power to kill more than you guys, and they killed less.

RGacky3

16th May 2008, 02:17

How did they have less power? They actually the power to kill more than you guys, and they killed less.

Capital power, global influence, Wealth, power when it comes to international affairs is'nt just how much weapons you have.

Phalanx

16th May 2008, 03:20

How did they have less power? They actually the power to kill more than you guys, and they killed less.

No they didn't. The Soviet Union had an equal amount of nuclear weapons, but they had much less hydrogen fusion bombs then the US. They may have killed less, but it wasn't by much. The US had Vietnam, the USSR had Afghanistan. The US had Latin America, the USSR had the genocides in Ethiopia and elsewhere in Africa.

Both were terrible for the proletariat and reactionary, so as a self-proclaimed 'revolutionary', I don't know why you're defending a morally corrupt superstate.

Dr. Rosenpenis

16th May 2008, 19:53

Not defending, recognizing the fact that they were far less harmful to the international proletariat and mainly the struggle for emancipation from capitalism.

Bear MacMillan

17th May 2008, 02:02

Everybody knows the policies of these two parties. No feigning ignorance. Americans who vote for Democrats and Republicans are complicit with murderous imperialist wars. The American people are marginalized and this ruling elite in no way represents them, but those who go to the voting stations to actively support the killers, purely out of free will, are guilty.

Look at what you're supporting
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7370502.stm
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/iraq

Justify your actions

I used this argument against some Obama supporters today, and holy shit. One of their replies was:

All of us on this page currently support imperialism and mass murder in our quest to ensure that imperialism and mass murder is a thing of the past in this new century.

I'm not making that up. Someone actually said that. Here's another nugget of comedic gold:

Obama is creating is a mass, internet based coalition of activists and bloggers willing to take on the establishment.

He IS the establisment, fucktard.