Log in

View Full Version : The corrupted USA



Revolutionary Youth
25th December 2008, 08:39
"Many people believe that with just a small change in an empire can help them less aggressive and more compassionate. It is so naive to believe that a smart man with good intentions could change the selfishness that has taken root in many centuries"-Fidel Castro in his comment about the new president of the USA.

I totally agree with him. What about you?

Phalanx
25th December 2008, 19:50
Yes, there are alot of blind Obama supporters that believe that he's here to save the world, but there's also alot of practical people here that hope he'll create jobs and promote a more peaceful diplomatic world mission. It's unfortunate that there are alot of people in the US that plain just don't think, but I also believe there's a growing minority of people here waking up to the ridiculousness of our past, such as our reliance of religion and our imperialist ventures. To many, Barack Obama is just the beginning of reforming the idea of the United States.

trivas7
26th December 2008, 03:16
Indeed, Obama is no socialist (http://www.wspus.org/featured/is-obama-a-socialist/).

FreeFocus
26th December 2008, 03:32
I agree with Fidel, but argue against any assertion that Obama has "good intentions." Indeed, no imperialist does, and settling for one imperialist over another still yields, surprise, an imperialist.

No compromises with imperialism.

TheCultofAbeLincoln
26th December 2008, 08:06
"No No No! I'm the patron saint of the left! wah!"

Just go away and die already tyrant.

TheCultofAbeLincoln
26th December 2008, 08:15
I agree with Fidel, but argue against any assertion that Obama has "good intentions." Indeed, no imperialist does, and settling for one imperialist over another still yields, surprise, an imperialist.

No compromises with imperialism.

So was there no difference between Nero and Vaspian?

The Empire's not going to be overthrown overnight, and until we get ushered back to the dark ages I want an emperor who doesn't need to have his assistants think for him.

RGacky3
28th December 2008, 02:52
Nero and Vaspian were Emperors, with huge amounts of control over the Roman Society.

Obama is a president, for 4 years, the president is not behind imperialism, Capitalism and Big Business is. It does'nt matter how good of intentions the president has, because ultimately what is in control is big money.

In the Roman Empire the Emperor, WAS the big big dog, over the other Roman big dogs. In the United States, the big dogs are the Capitalist, the president is their butler.

Robert
28th December 2008, 03:05
Vespasian, maybe? Viewed from the Commie perspective, I suppose there was no difference between a Vespasian, who was quite the imperialist, and a Nero.

I don't think either Bush or Obama are in their league, however.

TheCultofAbeLincoln
28th December 2008, 05:31
I was just making an analogy to power in the world power of the day shifting hands to a more competent, forward-thinking person. Of course it's a stetch, after all, I don't think Obama is going to send one of his children to burn Jerusalem and destroy Israel.



Obama is a president, for 4 years, the president is not behind imperialism, Capitalism and Big Business is. It does'nt matter how good of intentions the president has, because ultimately what is in control is big money.


If the President was opposed to a war, coup (obviously one we're sponsoring), spec/black-ops, or missile/air strike it wouldn't happen. The man has the power to do a lot, or stop things.

Obviously, the problem is all the presidents that have been elected are counted on to continue the policy.



In the Roman Empire the Emperor, WAS the big big dog, over the other Roman big dogs. In the United States, the big dogs are the Capitalist, the president is their butler.

I would say hit man, but yes, he doesn't have absolute power.

RGacky3
28th December 2008, 20:47
If the President was opposed to a war, coup (obviously one we're sponsoring), spec/black-ops, or missile/air strike it wouldn't happen. The man has the power to do a lot, or stop things.

Chances are a president like that would'nt be able to be president, second chances are that president would suffer major fallout both politically and economically. He would have weakened America, given up American economic interests, Corporations would no longer support his party, Corporations may no longer feel like they are able to count on the American government, and thus might turn to others, i.e. China.

So yes he can make a big difference, but, it would be very very hard, and it would have major consequences for him.

I agree, hit man is better, but he also keeps his house (the United States) in order.

That being said, there is a lot of good that the president can do, within the Capitalist framework, but it has to be good that the Capitalists can live with and no more. Its like a child trying to take candy from the table, he can only take so much before his parents slap him on the hand. Obama can maybe give out free health care, as long as he convinces Capitalists its in their benefit, and won't hurt them.

TheCultofAbeLincoln
29th December 2008, 02:26
Vespasian, maybe?

Well, you know, a public education only goes so far :rolleyes:



That being said, there is a lot of good that the president can do, within the Capitalist framework, but it has to be good that the Capitalists can live with and no more. Its like a child trying to take candy from the table, he can only take so much before his parents slap him on the hand. Obama can maybe give out free health care, as long as he convinces Capitalists its in their benefit, and won't hurt them.First of all, yeah, I agree nobody who didn't want to continue on imperialism wouldn't get any credibility.

Second, with the obvious exception of Lincoln and a few other instances, no President has ever really wanted to change the status-quo in a way which would challenge the ruling establishment, or even policies which are more beneficial to the average person than the wealthy. For example, when you talk about the healthcare Obama's proposing it's health insurance for everyone paid for by the taxpayer provided by private companies, as opposed to legit single-payer healthcare. But I wouldn't say that if the office had enough support (which is hard in a country where everyone's brainwahed by Corporate Media) he/she couldn't carry out a lot of socialist policies, or at least move that direction.

spice756
2nd January 2009, 02:21
In a year we will know who Obama really is :(Well is he for people or the big companies.

May be he will change NAFTA and the free trade ?

Francis
2nd January 2009, 04:23
I know man, why can't we all be like South Africa?



I read in a NY Times article that revealed that South Africa was much better off when the whites were running it.

Of course the NY Times doesn't say that explicitly, but South Africa used to be a safe country to live in, and now it's crime-ridden and the electricity is failing (like a scene out of Atlas Shrugged).


I wonder if even a single anti-apartheid leftist come out and say "maybe we were wrong about that?"

Chapter 24
2nd January 2009, 04:59
I know man, why can't we all be like South Africa?



I read in a NY Times article that revealed that South Africa was much better off when the whites were running it.

Of course the NY Times doesn't say that explicitly, but South Africa used to be a safe country to live in, and now it's crime-ridden and the electricity is failing (like a scene out of Atlas Shrugged).


I wonder if even a single anti-apartheid leftist come out and say "maybe we were wrong about that?"

Fuck that shit man. You're just an apologist for colonialism. Your racist argument for apartheid, under the assumption that blacks are somehow inferior to whites at ruling their own country is disgusting. Anyone who doesn't think that the overall struggle against apartheid was a progressive thing should learn from history!

Francis
2nd January 2009, 05:02
African countries can succeed if they have decent government. Botswana is an example. Problem is, Botswana has more natural resource capital per capita (in the form of diamonds) than any other country in Africa.

Botswana has less than 2 million population, but produces more diamonds than any other country in the world.

Smart white people from De Beers run the country. The black government is just a passive observer.

TheCultofAbeLincoln
2nd January 2009, 09:35
Francis, you aren't seriously trying to suggest that Obama will fail because he is black, are you?

Comparing the US with an African nation is enough of a stretch.

Francis
2nd January 2009, 15:18
Just showing that there's a lot worse place to live than in America.

Dr Mindbender
2nd January 2009, 15:26
the worst off countries in the world also happen to have capitalist economies. So the fact that the 'best off' ones are capitalist means diddly squat.

Francis
2nd January 2009, 17:22
Like North Korea and the Sudan, right?

Here are the top 5:

1. Iceland
2. Norway
3. Australia
4. Canada
5. Ireland

12. USA

According to the UN. All are capitalist countries with functional legal systems that enforce property rights. The USA is probably 12 because we allow way too many low IQ people into our country via immigration who depreciate wages for people who just need jobs. Not to mention, a very violent underclass.

We're too diverse.

Mindtoaster
2nd January 2009, 17:30
I know man, why can't we all be like South Africa?



I read in a NY Times article that revealed that South Africa was much better off when the whites were running it.

Of course the NY Times doesn't say that explicitly, but South Africa used to be a safe country to live in, and now it's crime-ridden and the electricity is failing (like a scene out of Atlas Shrugged).


I wonder if even a single anti-apartheid leftist come out and say "maybe we were wrong about that?"

WIIIIITE POOOOWWWWUUUUUR

You're right, fuck letting blacks vote and run their own country.

Shouldn't supporting apartheid be bannable from RevLeft? I tend to bicker about some of the restrictions handed out on this site, but apartheid support certainly falls under fascism in my book.

Mindtoaster
2nd January 2009, 17:35
Like North Korea and the Sudan, right?

Here are the top 5:

1. Iceland
2. Norway
3. Australia
4. Canada
5. Ireland

12. USA

According to the UN. All are capitalist countries with functional legal systems that enforce property rights. The USA is probably 12 because we allow way too many low IQ people into our country via immigration who depreciate wages for people who just need jobs. Not to mention, a very violent underclass.

We're too diverse.

Hah, yes. When the uppity, rich fuck fails to defend capitalism he jumps to blaming it on race.

Surprising :rolleyes:

Francis
2nd January 2009, 17:37
WIIIIITE POOOOWWWWUUUUUR

You're right, fuck letting blacks vote and run their own country.

Shouldn't supporting apartheid be bannable from RevLeft? I tend to bicker about some of the restrictions handed out on this site, but apartheid support certainly falls under fascism in my book.

Who said anything about supporting apartheid?

Don't shoot the messenger now.

Francis
2nd January 2009, 17:39
Hah, yes. When the uppity, rich fuck fails to defend capitalism he jumps to blaming it on race.

Surprising :rolleyes:

Please tell me, how diverse is Iceland and Norway? Probably not very diverse.

Are they racist?

Mindtoaster
2nd January 2009, 17:47
Please tell me, how diverse is Iceland and Norway? Probably not very diverse.

Are they racist?

No, but they're social democracies, as are most of the countries on the top 10 of that list.

Maybe the free university education for all in Norway has a bit to do with it getting up there on the list.

You know, free university education, like socialists advocate?

Killfacer
2nd January 2009, 18:34
Dont they ban racists? Im sure America's low IQ is more to do with the thick red neck idiots who inhabit most of it.

Francis
2nd January 2009, 19:03
No, but they're social democracies, as are most of the countries on the top 10 of that list.

Certainly capitalist, none the less. Read back a few posts to understand why I posted what I posted.


Maybe the free university education for all in Norway has a bit to do with it getting up there on the list.

We have that in the USA for people who qualify. Not to mention, all of the tax money that colleges and universities get so that professors can sit around and loaf all day. It may not go directly to the students' tuition, but we have publicly funded higher education. Of course, it doens't go to the students themselves.


Dont they ban racists? Im sure America's low IQ is more to do with the thick red neck idiots who inhabit most of it.

"Thick red neck idiots" and "white trash" are apart of the underclass.

Let's export America's underclass to Norway and see how they deal with it.

Dr Mindbender
2nd January 2009, 19:05
Whats that *sniff sniff* A racial agenda?

I smell SF troll.

Killfacer
2nd January 2009, 19:13
I smell a fucking turd. Oh.. shit.