Taijitu
Forum Meta => Archive => General Discussion Archive => Topic started by: Khem on March 27, 2007, 02:36:10 PM
-
what party gets your vote america?
i myself will be going with the Elder Party, as i want to get Lord Cthulhu into office.
-
Probably Libertarian, since I can't stand either of the Big Two parties.
-
neither can i. from what i have seen in the polls, many libertarians will be going democrat for the next election, as they are playing a more centrist route.
-
Is Senator Palpatine running for Emperor in '08? :clap:
-
perhaps. the debate between Palpatine and Cthulhu will be one drag out crazy event.
-
Hmm...I thought this was going to be a poll. Now I actually have to research parties...
I'll probably vote SEP, unless John Edwards gets the Democratic nomination.
-
Depending on who gets the GOP nomination, Republican. Don't hate me for it, I was brought up on conservative principles :-P :trout:
-
Monarchist, but since they'll never win, Republican.
-
perhaps. the debate between Palpatine and Cthulhu will be one drag out crazy event.
A Palpatine/Cthulhu ticket would be the greatest thing ever. :clap:
-
I live in Massachusetts, so there is absolutely no point in me voting.
-
It will be my first time voting, since I turn 18 in December of 2007 :) I will write in Barrack Obama if he doesn't get the Democratic nom. I live in NY, so my vote for president doesn't matter much either Prag, but there will be some pretty interesting local races I want to vote in.
-
I want to see the mayor of chicago lose, that would be awsome
-
I'm not american but if I were I would probably vote for someone who runs an isolationist policy
-
I'm not american but if I were I would probably vote for someone who runs an isolationist policy
:D lol... yah... *tries to imagine isolationist America*... RIGHT.
-
Yeah, last time we tried that it really didn't work. Never mind that I'm an avowed internationalist; no better way to ensure international conflict then to have every nation turn in on itself, removing itself from any mutual understanding or dependency with other nations.
-
Not to mention all the international trade that would stop, effectively halting or reversing the economy of many large nations in the world.
-
:fight: these are our two political parties. these are communists :drunks:
-
Ron Paul FTW in 2008!
A Congressman from Texas, but he is a small 'l' libertarian. I've already donated 25 dollars.
-
Were I a citizen of the US, I'd vote Republican to hasten the collapse.
-
Were I a citizen of the US, I'd vote Republican to hasten the collapse.
Eh?
You want the US to collapse?
-
I'd vote for a dem. Probably Obama, because Hilary is such a hardcore liberal that she will attacked anyone who does not agree with her policies 100%. I don't think that a person like that should be in office.
-
do they have an equivalent to the monster raving loony party in the states. their points are always hilarious to look at though being serious, the americans should stay with the republicans
-
Were I a citizen of the US, I'd vote Republican to hasten the collapse.
Eh?
You want the US to collapse?
It is... inevitable, so why not just get over with it?
-
Because if the US collapses, the rest of the world is going to feel it too. We're all interconnected into today's global world...
And voting Republican won't necessarily hasten any collapse anyway.
-
O rly?
-
I'd vote for a dem. Probably Obama, because Hilary is such a hardcore liberal that she will attacked anyone who does not agree with her policies 100%. I don't think that a person like that should be in office.
First, her name is spelled with two "l"s, second, both Obama and Hillary are closer to Reagan than to any genuine Social Democracy.
-
The only way I could see the USA collapsing is if someone 'accidentally' nuked it. Even then there would still be a few cancer riddled mutants wondering around hunting for brains, demanding tax cuts etc...
-
The only way I could see the USA collapsing is if someone 'accidentally' nuked it. Even then there would still be a few cancer riddled mutants wondering around hunting for brains, demanding tax cuts etc...
that could happen and china would become the next america. but do we really need the US to be a zombie ridden wasteland like in Resident Evil? they cause enough trouble without being zombies! anyway keep republicans in though it wont affect me!
-
I'd vote for a dem. Probably Obama, because Hilary is such a hardcore liberal that she will attacked anyone who does not agree with her policies 100%. I don't think that a person like that should be in office.
First, her name is spelled with two "l"s, second, both Obama and Hillary are closer to Reagan than to any genuine Social Democracy.
But I wouldn't necessarily call Reagan a Republican.
-
I don't use party labels to refer to philosophies.
The Democrat party harbors everyone from neo-liberals to social democrats (very few of these)
The Republican Party harbors everyone from fascists (very few of these) to neo-liberals.
Thus, the party names themselves have little meaning. I consider Reagan, Clinton (Bill), Obama, and Clinton (Hillary) neo-liberals. Bush I was a more classical conservative, while Bush II is somewhere along the lines of Juan Peron. It's not just that this wife's more popular than he is; his administration is also rather fascistic.
Edwards is, at this point, the only Social Democrat in the race, which explains my earlier endorsement.
-
I've never really thought about it in a non-main political party way.
-
G-C is correct. Unlike in other countries political parties in the US are rather weak and allow great variation within their ranks.
-
Well that's because there are only really two of them. If there were more, each would be more strict about their representatives policies.
-
As much as saying it makes me feel like a dirty, political whore: I will vote Democrat in 2008 because I would rather get the Republicans out than vote for a third party I actually like and risk having another psycho right-wing Nazi in the White House. Unless Hillary gets the nomination, of course. I despise that woman to the depths of my soul and so many other Dems feel the same way I find myself less than worried about her being on the ballot.
Obama has a pretty consistent voting record for an American politician; an obvious liberal, but not so much he alienates too many middle-of-the-road voters. From things he's said and the way he's voted he seems like a decent human being that actually gives a shit about people. I wouldn't mind voting for him.
-
" I despise that woman to the depths of my soul"
Right on. What third party do you support?
-
To be completely honest, I don't know yet. I haven't done enough research on the candidates gunning for the 2008 election to make a decision. I don't like to choose based on party lines so I investigate each individual candidate. It's likely I'll finish up soon, so I'll report back.
-
Just because someone is a Republican doesn't make them a Fascist neo-conservative. McCain, R. Paul, and Giuliani are Republican candidates and none of them are very extremely conservative (in fact Paul is a libertarian in GOP disguise)
-
Democrat all the way. Bush has been a complete disaster from Day One, and his party have been corrupted by his, quite frankly, fascist and neo-conservative views.
However, if Clinton gets nominated and Chuck Hagel decides to run, I'd vote for him.
EDIT: @ Ryazania - Correct, but any one of those candidates would face considerable opposition within the party to their agendas. And McCain's just too old.
-
McCain has an Iraq problem :/
-
I don't see it as a problem. I hate sounding like a Republican, but I sure as hell wouldn't let Iraq fuck itself up even worse because we left. The war's origins may be misleading, but you can't just leave.
-
Just because someone is a Republican doesn't make them a Fascist neo-conservative. McCain, R. Paul, and Giuliani are Republican candidates and none of them are very extremely conservative (in fact Paul is a libertarian in GOP disguise)
Um, Ryaz, who said it did? The closest I can find to that sort of comment in this thread would be my assertion that the population of the GOP ranges from neo-liberal to fascist. That does not mean that every Republican is automatically a fascist; one would have to be totally ignorant or willfully demagogic to make that sort of claim, especially as it is not true. I sense an auto-defense mechanism [/joke]
I don't see it as a problem. I hate sounding like a Republican, but I sure as hell wouldn't let Iraq fuck itself up even worse because we left. The war's origins may be misleading, but you can't just leave.
This position assumes that American troops are a source of stability in Iraq. In fact, the American military is deliberately being used as a source of instability igniting long-dormant conflicts and killing at will. Most of the fighters in Iraq are nationalist; they will cease fighting as soon as the Americans leave. They have said so themselves. The leadership of the groups may be zealots, true, but that doesn't necessarily reflect the position of the rank and file, which is far more anti-occupation than anti-Sunni or Shia or Kurd.
In fact, while we're withdrawing from Iraq, why not withdraw from our 100+ other bases worldwide? Rape, murder, arson, and all sorts of crimes increase dramatically the moment one gets near an American military base in a foreign country. American military power in no way helps the countries where it resides, and any and every American soldier stationed on foreign soil, where he doesn't belong, should be brought home.
-
Agrees with G-C, the only reason the US is getting so much heat around the world is because of those stationed troops so without the troops there, there wouldn't be so much heat and there wouldn't be any need for troops... The US needs to stop enforcing their companies's interests with military force... I would go so far as to say that the US is one of the least civilized nations in the developed northern hemisphere, not being far ahead of Russia or other former USSR nations.
-
Agrees with G-C, the only reason the US is getting so much heat around the world is because of those stationed troops so without the troops there, there wouldn't be so much heat and there wouldn't be any need for troops... The US needs to stop enforcing their companies's interests with military force... I would go so far as to say that the US is one of the least civilized nations in the developed northern hemisphere, not being far ahead of Russia or other former USSR nations.
I hate to say it, but I have to agree with you. Our international politics border on the absolutely barbaric.
-
^yes, on the barbaric side of that line as far as the current admin. goes.
-
Agrees with G-C, the only reason the US is getting so much heat around the world is because of those stationed troops so without the troops there, there wouldn't be so much heat and there wouldn't be any need for troops... The US needs to stop enforcing their companies's interests with military force... I would go so far as to say that the US is one of the least civilized nations in the developed northern hemisphere, not being far ahead of Russia or other former USSR nations.
The problem is that US corporate interests cannot be enforced abroad without US military presence, just as US corporate interests cannot be enforced at home without police presence. It is not in the working class' interest, either in the US or abroad, to harbor US corporations (or any other corporations for that matter). Therefore, the working class needs to be supressed with force. The only way to get the US military out of other countries is to do away with corporate interests, and the only way to do away with corporate interests is to do away with capitalism.
Inductive reasoning ftw!
-
I concur with that statement.
-
Well, as soon as anyone tries to regulate corporations with majority ownership in the US, the CIA manages to "find" something "that poses a threat to american soverignity" and the senate and congress is manipulated to approve a new offencive campaign in "defence of freedom"
Aka. defending the US's "right" to use other peoples's resources and labour without taking responsibility for any local negative effects on neither economy, environment or population.
-
Oh, come on now. You know as well as I do that America is the best country in the world and we should be able to do whatever we want; might makes right. If we think we should economically and socially rape another country, so be it. The United States of America has been chosen as the world's leader and we deserve our rights, damn it! God bless the US!
[/rampant sarcasm]
-
Well, as soon as anyone tries to regulate corporations with majority ownership in the US, the CIA manages to "find" something "that poses a threat to american soverignity" and the senate and congress is manipulated to approve a new offencive campaign in "defence of freedom"
Aka. defending the US's "right" to use other peoples's resources and labour without taking responsibility for any local negative effects on neither economy, environment or population.
Which is exactly why change must be effected in the US. If it's effected anywhere else, the US military and intelligence sectors are the primary counter-revolutionary forces. Those sectors must be dismanteled in the US if revolution anywhere can succeed. And they can only be dismantled if the economic system and the state that enforces it are also dismantled.
Oh, come on now. You know as well as I do that America is the best country in the world and we should be able to do whatever we want; might makes right. If we think we should economically and socially rape another country, so be it. The United States of America has been chosen as the world's leader and we deserve our rights, damn it! God bless the US!
Your satire amuses me. Also, don't you think it's funny that the Senate gallery has "novus ordo seclorum" etched into its walls, and yet, the motto of the US is "in God we trust"? I just find that amusing.
-
Your satire amuses me. Also, don't you think it's funny that the Senate gallery has "novus ordo seclorum" etched into its walls, and yet, the motto of the US is "in God we trust"? I just find that amusing.
Virgil; fantastic. Can you imagine the look on the faces of the "Christian right" if they knew what that quote came from?
Speaking of, I find them extremely embarrassing. Not only as a citizen of the same country, mind, but a member of sort-of the same faith (though hearing what I believe, they would probably deny this). They make all Christians look like fanatical demagogues with very little sense of what the man they supposedly follow actually taught. I suppose you could call me a member of the "Christian left", not having been raised as a Christian, finding the faith on my own, and having the opportunity to decide what I believe on my own without being spoon-fed any bullshit. Not to get us into a debate about religion; I am side-tracking myself. The point is, the obvious ignorance of a large portion (not all, of course) of the Christian right makes our whole faith, and our whole country, look bad. So many of us don't agree with anything they advocate, but they've created a huge political lobby and it's hard to get around it sometimes.
-
We have the same problem with AIPAC. All the religions have the same problem; their left-wing membership disdains political organizing.
-
I'm a bit disappointed to see so many people leaping onto the massive global corporate conspiracy bandwagon.
Firstly, do you really think that the United States government, given its dismal track record of late, could ever pull off anything as complex and intricate as the sorts of conspiracies you seem to be hinting at?
This is not about capitalism, this is simply about power. The United States is powerful, simple as that. Power, and human hubris and stupidity. Were the United States communist, they'd be just as irresponsible in wielding that power for the sake of communism.
And as to getting rid of capitalism, might I remind you what happened the last couple of times we tried to do that, i.e. mass starvation, poverty and no decent economy to speak of? The evidence speaks for itself; the best developed areas of the world, the United States, Europe, Japan and so forth, have what when all is said and considered are free and open markets.
Which of course brings us to another point, that there are plenty of countries with free market economies that aren't rampaging over the world and such. Consider:
United States: 1.84
Switzerland: 1.89
Canada: 1.85
Iceland: 1.74
Ireland: 1.58
Luxembourg: 1.60
Sweden: 1.96
Denmark: 1.78
Your argument that capitalism and free markets inevitably results in the behavior displayed by the United States is complete bunk. I return to my original point: power and hubris.
-
-
Firstly, do you really think that the United States government, given its dismal track record of late, could ever pull off anything as complex and intricate as the sorts of conspiracies you seem to be hinting at?
What do you mean, its "dismal track record of late?" The United States government has over 231 years of a "dismal track record." There's racial slavery and Indian genocide, then imperialist ventures first in Flordia, then against Mexico, then against Spain, then in the Phillipines, then in Korea and Vietnam, and now in the Middle East. The "dismal track record" has been virtually continuous.
Furthermore, I fail to see how accurately pointing out the large number of US military bases around the world is a conspiracy theory. It is a simple fact; the United States has military bases all over the world, in around a hundred countries, in all regions of the globe. And it is not conspiracy to say that crime increases near an American military base, because it does. Nor is it conspiracy to say that much of this crime is perpetrated by American servicemen. Because it is. The top brass confirm it.
This is not about capitalism, this is simply about power. The United States is powerful, simple as that. Power, and human hubris and stupidity. Were the United States communist, they'd be just as irresponsible in wielding that power for the sake of communism.
Were the United States communist, the rest of the world would be communist too. Because communism implies the absense of a state, and the states won't be permanently abolished until there are no states that threaten them. You want to use the word "socialist."
And you're implying that it is in the nature of Americans to be irresponsible? Or are you implying that about the powerful? Because I would agree with you; it is always in the nature of a ruling group to advance its interests at the expense of other groups. However, it is not true that it must be done in an irresponsible manner. Without economic imperialism to enforce, American military power would not be necessary. That was the mistake the Soviets made; they tried to exert their will through military force over other countries, and failed. What you don't realize is that we socialists might have learned from their mistakes.
And as to getting rid of capitalism, might I remind you what happened the last couple of times we tried to do that, i.e. mass starvation, poverty and no decent economy to speak of? The evidence speaks for itself; the best developed areas of the world, the United States, Europe, Japan and so forth, have what when all is said and considered are free and open markets.
I defy you to name me one time where "we" have tried it. What has been tried, in most cases, is imposing economic plans upon an unwilling people. You fail to consider the class interests of the peasantry in China and Russia, to which you seem to be referring; it is in their interest to own their own land, not to collectivize it. You would probably make the argument that that can never change, but right now, in the advanced capitalist countries, it is in the farm workers' interest to own land cooperatively. That would not be an imposition, and would require no military force to enforce it.
In Cuba, for example, most of the rural residents worked, for wages (that is impoertant) on plantations owned and managed by either American or Cuban planters. They had ceased to be peasants; they had become farm workers. Consequently, socialism was not an imposition upon them in Cuba, and they support it to this day. In China, socialism was a patriotic way to drive out the Japanese invaders, and it soon lost its lustre. China has ceased to be socialist precisely because of this.
United States: 1.84
Switzerland: 1.89
Canada: 1.85
Iceland: 1.74
Ireland: 1.58
Luxembourg: 1.60
Sweden: 1.96
Denmark: 1.78
Now, there are a couple of things wrong here. I never said that each capitalist country had to have its own imperialist military to work its will. Each of the countries you mention, besides the United States, has a small population. Therefore, it has a small tax base, and has a smaller pool to draw from for recruits. None but the United States can afford such a large military. Besides, it is in the interests of the ruling class of each of these countries to have someone else do their military dirty work for them. That way they don't have to spend money on it. What you fail to see is that the American military is not just the instrument of the American capitalist class; it is the instrument of the international capitalist class.
Your argument therefore fails.
-
And you're implying that it is in the nature of Americans to be irresponsible? Or are you implying that about the powerful? Because I would agree with you; it is always in the nature of a ruling group to advance its interests at the expense of other groups. However, it is not true that it must be done in an irresponsible manner. Without economic imperialism to enforce, American military power would not be necessary. That was the mistake the Soviets made; they tried to exert their will through military force over other countries, and failed. What you don't realize is that we socialists might have learned from their mistakes.
North Korea. Made a nuclear weapon. Did they learn? And don't call them non-socialist; that's an opinion, not a fact.
I defy you to name me one time where "we" have tried it. What has been tried, in most cases, is imposing economic plans upon an unwilling people. You fail to consider the class interests of the peasantry in China and Russia, to which you seem to be referring; it is in their interest to own their own land, not to collectivize it. You would probably make the argument that that can never change, but right now, in the advanced capitalist countries, it is in the farm workers' interest to own land cooperatively. That would not be an imposition, and would require no military force to enforce it.
The first cavemen were, by all standards, "communist". And are they utopic? Not to mention that if people wanted communism so bad, they had 200 years to start a rebellion and do something. Farmers still own land and livestock, and they DON'T WANT TO CHANGE. Forcing a rebellion of communism onto people will immediately contradict Marx's teachings of imposing economic systems, because there will always be holdouts, much as there are communists in a capitalist society. We're doing nothing to make them buy stuff, they can live by themselves. In a communist society, there are no shops allowed, therefore a capitalist can't object to communism. Communism forces itself on it's people, capitalism doesn't.
Where do you buy your clothing GC? Your house? Anything? Being that you are a communist, you should sew your own clothing, build your own house, and walk everywhere.
What you fail to see is that the American military is not just the instrument of the American capitalist class; it is the instrument of the international capitalist class.
What you fail to see is that the Chinese military is the instrument of international communists. It doesn't matter whether China is socialist or not, until they let corporations into it, they are, for all due purposes, not completely capitalist and therefore, are using their population to NK's, Laos', Vietnam's, and Cuba's advantage.
-
That was the mistake the Soviets made; they tried to exert their will through military force over other countries, and failed. What you don't realize is that we socialists might have learned from their mistakes.
You seem to back up precisely the point I made; anyone with power has the potential to abuse it, regardless of their ideology.
And for the matter of responsibility, when you consider the size of the United States, the reach and power it has, the many many ways in which mistakes can be made and harm done should be apparent. Because of its size, and because it is currently a relatively uncontested superpower, the opportunities to go astray are multiplied. And the more ways there are for mistakes to be and for irresponsible action to be taken the more likely they are to occur.
And by "we" I was referrng to humanity as a whole. The simple fact is you cannot abolish market devices and incentives completely nor should you. Do that, establish what I understand to be true communism, and you create a system in which no matter how hard you work you will earn nothing more and no matter how little you work you will earn nothing less. Thus the incentive created is not to work. If people aren't working, there's no economy. And if there is no economy, things will probably revert to a massive black market as market forces, which are like it or not ingrained to some degree in human nature in the form of self interest, inevitably take over, the government unable to administer any sizable economy centrally because without an economy, at least legal one, they've got no resources to work with.
And of course said black markets are ipso facto unregulated, creating even more problems.
Or of course everyone excepts their fate in a world without an economy and perishes, but human survival instinct is strong.
And as for your final argument, it relies on the fact that all of these nations are also in on this grand global capitalist conspiracy, for which you have not presented any evidence. What's more, you reaffirm my original point: what makes America different from these countries is not that it is capitalist, but that it is powerful, and that that power explains its actions compared to those other countries.
-
just for the record, I don't belive in the class-struggle as such, I just argue against abuse of power.
-
I don't believe in paying taxes, but...
-
I object to using taxes. I've tried to avoid taxes by using private currency, and so far it has worked on local levels.
-
Income tax I'm against. Sales tax and stuff actually makes sense, but income tax is:
1. Slavery
2. A punishment for being productive.
But what REALLY pisses me off is how WE have to pay taxes for having a job, but the BUMS get CHECKS.
-
Income tax is a way to pay for a lot of government benefits other than social welfare. Social welfare is just a way of smoothening the rock bottom of society.
-
The government is wasting billions of dollars that should be handled by the private sector.
-
U-S-A, U-S-A, U-S-A!
-
Hell, I don't like living in the US, and don't think I will if the current field of politicians point to anything.. I'd rather live in Ireland or Hong Kong.
-
Oh, Hong Kong's a very neat place to live in as long as you're not totally poor. Ireland... well... yeah.
-
Well, in sweden there has been an annual real-estate tax for the last 10 years but the new government is abolishing it by january next year. Yes, you heard it right, it's a tax for owning a property, and the value of the property is determined by what it and nearby properties have been sold for...
-
Yeah, we have that in the US too. I hate that tax, though as a homeowner I'll admit that I'm biased.
-
North Korea. Made a nuclear weapon. Did they learn? And don't call them nonsocialist; that's an opinion, not a fact.
North Korea is a military dictatorship masquerading as a socialist state. Just about nothing that goes on in that country can be called socialism. Sorry, but that's not a "mere opinion" of any kind; fact is fact.
The first cavemen were, by all standards, "communist". And are they utopic? Not to mention that if people wanted communism so bad, they had 200 years to start a rebellion and do something. Farmers still own land and livestock, and they DON'T WANT TO CHANGE. Forcing a rebellion of communism onto people will immediately contradict Marx's teachings of imposing economic systems, because there will always be holdouts, much as there are communists in a capitalist society. We're doing nothing to make them buy stuff, they can live by themselves. In a communist society, there are no shops allowed, therefore a capitalist can't object to communism. Communism forces itself on it's people, capitalism doesn't.
I don't think you have any idea how cavemen lived or how happy they were with it. We can only speculate (no one wrote social commentary on cave walls, believe it or not) but anthropologists have uncovered some pretty telling details, and it is highly unlikely that their lifestyle was communistic. A certain type of tribal sharing, yes, but a society with so little advancement and job specification could hardly be called "communist". Tribal communalism is very different.. Would you call nomadic tribes sharing livestock and living off the land communists? What are these "all standards" you speak of? They certainly don't fit any standards I've ever heard of for determining the nature of a political entity.
Secondly, the entire point of communism is that you cannot force it on a society. It has to come naturally from the working class. No one here was saying we should or even could successfully force it prematurely on any given country. Please don't even attempt to say capitalism doesn't force itself on anyone. If you aren't born into affluence in a capitalist society and you aren't lucky enough to live next door to a commune (which are very rare, especially in the 'States), you're stuck. By the time you save enough money to move hundreds or thousands of miles away you'll have gotten into debt by buying a car or a home, maybe you'll have student loans from college, etc. At that point you have to keep working a capitalist job to make money to make your payments every month. Spend your savings to pay off your debts, and you don't have the money to move. That's not being stuck? That's not forced? Hell, I can't afford to move to another town where the rents are lower to save money.
And by "we" I was referrng to humanity as a whole. The simple fact is you cannot abolish market devices and incentives completely nor should you. Do that, establish what I understand to be true communism, and you create a system in which no matter how hard you work you will earn nothing more and no matter how little you work you will earn nothing less. Thus the incentive created is not to work. If people aren't working, there's no economy. And if there is no economy, things will probably revert to a massive black market as market forces, which are like it or not ingrained to some degree in human nature in the form of self interest, inevitably take over, the government unable to administer any sizable economy centrally because without an economy, at least legal one, they've got no resources to work with.
Personally, I would absolutely love it if humanity was unselfish and compassionate enough to make the transition into pure communism. I do not, however, believe it is possible for us to do so given our current evolutionary state. As a species, we desire reward and possessions and power and we think we deserve it. We are also very lazy and often won't do anything if we don't have to. We can incorporate elements of it into our government, and I believe we should do so wherever we can, but those cannot be forced either.
[/post that's probably going to piss people off, sadly]
-
I'd like to stress that, despite my belief in free markets and my objection to communism, that neither Myroria nor Ryazania speak for me, even if we're on the same side of this argument.
So criticize their arguments all you want :P
And as for communism naturally coming from the "working class", problem there is that if the working class goes through the trouble of going through this whole communist revolution it shows that they ipso facto are concerned with their own personal material well being. And if that concern exists, communism will fall apart.
-
Just about nothing that goes on in that country can be called socialism.
State-owned industry produces nearly all manufactured goods.
However, North Korea has a command economy in which nearly everything of value is already owned by the state.
North Korea's economy remains one of the world's last centrally planned systems.
Not socialist?
Would you call nomadic tribes sharing livestock and living off the land communists?
Yes, as a matter of fact, I would. Wikipedia says "Communism is an ideology that seeks to establish a classless, stateless social organization based on common ownership of the means of production." The means of production being livestock, as many Indians used their animals for mostly everything, and as you yourself said "sharing livestock", that would mean that Indians shared the means of production, therefore being communist.
Primitive communism, which Marx himself believed existed, was the state of the pre-historic cavemen. He said that "exploitation of the working class" (Which I put in quotations because it's funny how workers have had an alternative idea for a little under 200 years and yet they don't do anything about being "exploited") came from having a surplus, which is basically saying "It's admirable to live on bare bones". If it wasn't for capitalism, there wouldn't be communism.
If you aren't born into affluence in a capitalist society and you aren't lucky enough to live next door to a commune (which are very rare, especially in the 'States), you're stuck. By the time you save enough money to move hundreds or thousands of miles away you'll have gotten into debt by buying a car or a home, maybe you'll have student loans from college, etc. At that point you have to keep working a capitalist job to make money to make your payments every month. Spend your savings to pay off your debts, and you don't have the money to move. That's not being stuck? That's not forced? Hell, I can't afford to move to another town where the rents are lower to save money.
My parents are not affluent, and yet they are not in debt either. People like to own things. That's how our instincts work. Communism asks humans to change everything they've ever held dear, and give up their possessions so that some leader can force power onto him and become "more equal". Power corrupts. Period. In capitalism, an absolute or strong leader over the country has little effect on the economy because everything is privately owned. In communism, a leader taking power immediately causes the economy to go all to hell, and all equality is broken. Not to mention in a communist system the leader should be living just like his people, without guards or anything (if he's in his own country). But that never happens because people will never be equal.
-
People will be equal one day, either through a hivemind or last man standing.
I prefer the latter, mainly because I'm a sick bastard.
As to why I'm not adding my intellectual €0.02 to the conversation is that communism and capitalism are both viable, working systems and surprisingly, their compromise works.
Damn, I'm €0.02 poorer. Crap.
-
Eh, I'd say that communism is absolutely unfeasible, flying in the face of all sound economic principle, as is completely unregulated markets, which carry those same principles of economics to a disastrous end. The best option is a wise middle path that balances the strengths of a free market with the strengths of government regulation.
-
And you're implying that it is in the nature of Americans to be irresponsible? Or are you implying that about the powerful? Because I would agree with you; it is always in the nature of a ruling group to advance its interests at the expense of other groups. However, it is not true that it must be done in an irresponsible manner. Without economic imperialism to enforce, American military power would not be necessary. That was the mistake the Soviets made; they tried to exert their will through military force over other countries, and failed. What you don't realize is that we socialists might have learned from their mistakes.
North Korea. Made a nuclear weapon. Did they learn? And don't call them non-socialist; that's an opinion, not a fact.
Well, I won't call them non-socialist. What I will call them is non-Marxist, undemocratic, and just plain insane. And the former two adjectives are admitted to, proudly, by themselves. Juche is, "our own kind of socialism," and not one that I particularly find atractive. Also, there are two problems with the "they have nukes!" argument. First, they can't really get it anywhere. The delivery systems they've tested have failed. Second, they are, like everyone else, subject to MAD.
I defy you to name me one time where "we" have tried it. What has been tried, in most cases, is imposing economic plans upon an unwilling people. You fail to consider the class interests of the peasantry in China and Russia, to which you seem to be referring; it is in their interest to own their own land, not to collectivize it. You would probably make the argument that that can never change, but right now, in the advanced capitalist countries, it is in the farm workers' interest to own land cooperatively. That would not be an imposition, and would require no military force to enforce it.
The first cavemen were, by all standards, "communist". And are they utopic? Not to mention that if people wanted communism so bad, they had 200 years to start a rebellion and do something. Farmers still own land and livestock, and they DON'T WANT TO CHANGE. Forcing a rebellion of communism onto people will immediately contradict Marx's teachings of imposing economic systems, because there will always be holdouts, much as there are communists in a capitalist society. We're doing nothing to make them buy stuff, they can live by themselves. In a communist society, there are no shops allowed, therefore a capitalist can't object to communism. Communism forces itself on it's people, capitalism doesn't.
"Primitive Communism" is a half-formed notion at best, and, even if accepted, differs from true communism in two respects. First, it lacks productive capacity. Cavemen simply did not have the technology that is available today. Second, it is unmotivated by class consciousness. Cavemen, because of their productive impotence, organized society around very local forms. As the class structure progresses, so do the organizations of society; from family to tribe to clan to city to nation to empire to an international state.
Your "holdouts" are motivated by class interest, just as communists are motivated by class interest in capitalist society. The thing about "holdouts" is, they are by definition a reactionary minority.
And to contradict your point about capitalism forcing itself onto people, I need only bring up...every year of its history. I look at Africa, the West of North America, Asia, and Ocenia and I see capitalism forcing itself onto a people whose class structure wasn't ready to accept it. Just as the Soviets shouldn't have tried to force Communism onto the Eastern Europeans whose class structure wasn't ready to accept it.
Where do you buy your clothing GC? Your house? Anything? Being that you are a communist, you should sew your own clothing, build your own house, and walk everywhere.
Ah, how very wrong you are. Being a communist, I believe that people should work in factories, and buy from shops. It's just that they should also own the places at which they work, and own collectively the places that distribute goods. Socialism isn't about turning back the clock on production. Socialism concerns itself with remedying the maldistribution of capitalism.
What you fail to see is that the American military is not just the instrument of the American capitalist class; it is the instrument of the international capitalist class.
What you fail to see is that the Chinese military is the instrument of international communists. It doesn't matter whether China is socialist or not, until they let corporations into it, they are, for all due purposes, not completely capitalist and therefore, are using their population to NK's, Laos', Vietnam's, and Cuba's advantage.
And that's where you're wrong. China has completely abandoned socialism. The Communist Party continues to exist in power only because its policies, since the 1970s, have remained friendly to its capitalist class. And its name has ceased to carry with it any meaning. China is a party dictatorship with a capitalist economy, as is recognized by Western economists, commentators, and virtually all informed citizens.
-
Also, there are two problems with the "they have nukes!" argument. First, they can't really get it anywhere. The delivery systems they've tested have failed. Second, they are, like everyone else, subject to MAD
It doesn't matter if it failed or not. They still wanted it.
Being a communist, I believe that people should work in factories, and buy from shops. It's just that they should also own the places at which they work
Which is fine. But then you say that you believe people should collectively own things, which really expects everyone to do their part, which won't happen. In capitalism, there are incentives for the unemployed to get jobs, i.e., they can't live without them. In communism, people will live off other people. It's completely and totally unavoidable. With no reason to get a job, people won't, and we'll end up with a palace economy state where no one does anything and the government supplies everything. There are active people and inactive people. In a communist society the inactive have no reason to be active and productive.
-
Well, in capitalism people also live off other people, the difference there is that those people are called "stock owners" or "investors".
And you, Myroria have to see the difference between true communism and the socialistic wellfare state that for example is in place in Sweden, the wellfare state gives out handouts, true communism don't, if you don't work there, you don't have anything to trade for things you want unlike the wellfare state wich serves only chaos in the long run.
-
The incentive in communism in responsibility, simple enough. In the capitalist world of today, far too many people are too irresponsible to make communism possible.
-
Responsibility? Communism is a system which allows you to get by without lifting a single finger because you'll automatically be bailed out. That hardly promotes responsibility, quite the opposite.
Also, consider:
(http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b324/PiggyL0rd/HDIEDI.png)
Obviously not a perfect correlation, but it makes its point.
-
Responsibility? Communism is a system which allows you to get by without lifting a single finger because you'll automatically be bailed out. That hardly promotes responsibility, quite the opposite.
Since fucking when? Communism is a system in which you get exactly as much you work for. You never even lift your finger, well, grass is good and water's free.
-
^Just as I told Myroria, Apparently, you yanks (Myro, Prag & Ryaz) have a tendency to confuse laisses-faire wellfare-states like Sweden with communism wich is just not even related though you have different grades of openmindedness between you.
-
Not socialist?
The means of production are not controlled by the working class, so no. The government is a dictatorship enforcing shared property, so it is not socialism. Sorry.
Would you call nomadic tribes sharing livestock and living off the land communists?
Yes, as a matter of fact, I would. Wikipedia says "Communism is an ideology that seeks to establish a classless, stateless social organization based on common ownership of the means of production." The means of production being livestock, as many Indians used their animals for mostly everything, and as you yourself said "sharing livestock", that would mean that Indians shared the means of production, therefore being communist.
Wait, who said anything about Indians? I wasn't discussing India, personally, and I don't think anyone had mentioned it... Did you mean Native Americans, by any chance? No one mentioned them either.
Anyway, there is an anthropological difference between tribal communalism and communism, whether you believe it or not. See Gallipoli-China's arguments for examples. Please study up before you argue the point.
Primitive communism, which Marx himself believed existed, was the state of the pre-historic cavemen. He said that "exploitation of the working class" (Which I put in quotations because it's funny how workers have had an alternative idea for a little under 200 years and yet they don't do anything about being "exploited") came from having a surplus, which is basically saying "It's admirable to live on bare bones". If it wasn't for capitalism, there wouldn't be communism.
It's interesting how self-defeating your arguments are. You say communism wouldn't exist without capitalism having preceded it, but in the same paragraph you say it existed in "primitive" societies before the advent of currency and the capitalist system.
My parents are not affluent, and yet they are not in debt either.
You mean they bought their home and car(s) with cash? They didn't take out loans on anything? That is very impressive, and I would call it affluence. Being debtless must be nice. ::)
-
My parents are not affluent, and yet they are not in debt either.
Congratulations, they're pretty unique as well as bourgeois, then. :P
Must love this, (http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/) though. Can't wait 'til it gets to nine trillion.
-
I don't confuse free market welfare states with communism. Indeed, I would argue that free markets are an integral part of a functioning welfare state, as the resources necessary to run it have to come from somewhere.
-
So if you don't work in a communist state, you get the same result as not working in a capitalist state? Then what the fuck are you complaining about if you would implement the same Goddamn thing.
-
If you look at it from your point of view, communism = capitalism without any corruption.
-
I would call something corrupted if a manual laborer earned as much as a astrophysicist working the same hours.
-
Rather, someone working for the same hours as someone doing nothing earning the same.
-
Why would a manual labourer earn as much as an astrophysicist in a communistic system? I fail to follow your Nimbus logic.
-
You can't claim equality if you're going to pay people differently. By doing so you will create a class system which you tried so hard to abolish.
-
Just remembered, people aren't paid. Having no currency does that.
-
Communism to me is the proof that very little has changed in many many years of human history. If you consider Machiavelli's theory of the six forms of government you'll find that Marxism and Communism take the same place as Aristocracy and Oligarchy with some interesting parallels. Look at Russia: just as a true Aristocracy has never existed neither has a true Marxist state, both immediately go to their respective negative form. Also as the theory goes from Oligarchy to Democracy what happened after the Communists fell out of power in Russia... Democracy.. next stop anarchy and then the cycle begins once more ;D
-
Then can you please explain to me how the fuck people are going to do anything without some omnipresent government providing everything?
-
Yeah. In communism, one person does nothing and gets just as much as someone who does everything. I again state my claim communism has been an option for 170 years and it's still not here yet. Looks like people still like to own things. Funny how that stuff works out, isn't it?
-
"People" as we now know them aren't. You don't have to worry about communism coming before you die.
Heeey... wait a second. Since when did I become the sentinel of communism here? I don't even support it, I'm an elitist! I believe in genocide!
-
Instincts don't change. People will always like to own things. Utopia is impossible.
-
That made me think of something, Garth.
While there are 'altruistic' animals, there are no dominant 'altruistic' animals. By dominant, I mean those at the top of the food chain, territory, etc. With this in mind, the human race is by far the most dominant species on Earth, leading it to be the least 'altruistic'.
-
So, altruism by your definition is what? Giving up power or never having it?
-
You know I hate the people who say "pick the best of two evils", No I want someone I like not that I hate, fuck you...
-
Good point. Let's try a titocracy.
-
Well, you know they only say that when they are two or more horrible options. It's not as if someone will vote for a candidate they think is bad when there is one they like.
-
Well, you know they only say that when they are two or more horrible options. It's not as if someone will vote for a candidate they think is bad when there is one they like.
I can't remember the last time either of the two front-runners WASN'T evil! :(
-
You're in the wrong country, mates.
-
Sadly, the larger 3rd Parties (Libertarian, Green) can barely muster 1% of any given vote. Sad, really. From all the research I've read, about 15% of the voting populace would fall under 'libertarian' and a smaller(but still sizeable) number for 'enviro-socialist' voters. I guess the smaller parties still stick to their principles, leaving nothing to be negotiated or compromised, which is their failing.
-
I should run for president under the Republican ticket when I'm 35, and then coronate myself King of the United Empire if I get elected. Mwahaha!
/me rubs hands together
-
I should run for something that gives power. Certain people here seem to have a fair understanding of what will ensue.
-
Hi, this is my first post in this section. Anyway, I'm reading what some of you are saying about "choosing the better of two evils." Just wondering, what do you find more annoying, people who preach voting for the lesser 'evil,' or people who don't vote at all, because they don't like either of the 'frontrunners'? Personally, I can't stand the latter; these are people who obviously couldn't care less about the political consequences of the situation, and only get caught up in the "race" mentality, and treat it like a sporting event. Otherwise, they'd take their vote and show that some people in the U.S. still value their vote highly enough to vote for the third party option they feel truly supportive of, instead of only choosing between the "frontrunners."
And then there's the rest of us, who are perfectly content choosing between the two 'evils.' ;D Right.
-
This is why you should be able to, instead of adding one to your candidate's vote count, subtract one from the worse candidate's own pool. We'd see people winning elections with twelve votes and 95% voted.
-
Hey Bar, you didn't post who you'd vote for.
And I sense that you are implying something, Solnath...
-
Tal- Of course, I'm not voting age, but I'd vote Republican, although I'll be the first to say that I'm disappointed with the fiscal liberalness of the last six years of pure Republican government. My third party choice would be Libertarian.
-
You wouldn't say? A lot of more hate for the system in people than love for it.
-
Yeah!! :clap: I guess I'm not the only Republican after all! Oh, and btw, I don't think anyone's been too happy with the economy... (although we are still growing strong and no one wants to recognize it)
-
I know, the economy's doing great, and getting better. But I'm talking about the fact that President Bush didn't even veto a handful of bills in those years... Where's the conservative, fiscal good-sense in that? He's created a new high for education spending... which is not what he needed to do if he wanted to improve the schools. Have some accountability for the funds already being provided before you start giving more hand-outs, and half the problem's solved, without expanding the U.S. deficit.
Tal, are we really the only Republicans on here? Oh well, studies of video games show that one or two good guys (like us) can defeat an infinite amount of bad guys (liberals, communists, terrorists, democrats, etc.) ;D
:fight:
-
That would rely on the facts that you are indeed "good guys," your player isn't incompetent and that I'm not against you, because having me as an opponent would be like going against Idol from Killer Instinct on difficulty level six.
-
plus you have me as a sexy enemy.
-
Ahh, enemies of the worst kind, those who are trying to seduce you only to leave you bleeding in a ditch ;D
-
or naked and tied up for your comrades to discover....
-
In terms of education, that's something which both parties are screwing us all over as far as I'm concerned, the Republicans with their refusal to provide any money where it's needed, the Democrats with their pandering to the Teacher's Union.
-
the education system needs to be completely revamped. hell if all schools ran like magnet schools where you get to choose your classes like in college it would provide a generation with an actual lust for knowlege. scrap gym class and put in compulsory martial arts, it will decrease violence and increase discipline. actualy most anything would be better than the current prison like school system in america.
-
Well said, my sexy enemy. ;)
Pragmia, please elaborate on your belief that Republicans don't put any money where it's needed. I agree with you, to a point, but I'm hoping you mean that they're throwing away too much money on useless social programs that only increase government's size, and an unaccountable education system that "loses" billions. If you mean that the spend-thrift Republican government we just left was tight-fisted with funds, I'd have to ask you to elaborate your point.
-
Speaking of school-systems.....
Incorporating the best of both the capitalist and public worlds, schools should run as such:
Each school gets x amount of dollars per student. Students may go to whichever school they would like to within their designated district. Therefore, if school A is better than school B, more students will go to school A. With more students at school A, school A gets more money, allowing them to even further educate its students. Using this, we will be able to insert competition into a public facility.
-
I really don't like many of the candidates. If they agree with my economic views, they disagree with my social views, and visa-versa. I kinda like Romney, but his recent flip-flopping scares me a little. McCain and Giulani are a little centrist. Then again, if I don't vote Republican, I'm stuck with Hilary or Obama, both of which terrify me. We need some more people with more conservative views on the ballot. Then again, I may be a little extremist. The only time where I would approve cloning would be for Reagan so he could run for president again. Don't burn me at the stake, please. I'm hopelessly conservative. :shrug:
-
Too late, I already lit the pyre O:-)
-
Don't worry Marsos, I would be a Republican if the GOP ran people like Reagan or Goldwater.
-
Same here. Don't worry about those liberal sissies.
-
I guess it is pretty extreme to be "conservative" nowadays. You know, the US would have no political problems worth mentioning if you just accepted the fact that you're a corporatist oligarchy.
-
True... and American "conservatism" isn't really that conservative. If we were truly conservative, there would be goddang liberals. We'd shoot 'em off the Capitol steps. Teach those hippies to protest on MY steps...
-
Jeez, I'd give anything I own for Reagan to come back and take charge of the country. But I guess that's not going to happen... By the way, I think Marsos said earlier that Guiliani was a little centrist... He's nothing but a liberal posing as a member of the GOP. He supports gun control, abortion... and he comes from New York. Need I say more?
Hey, Ryaz, you and I should start up some Barry Goldwater nostalgia club. (who knows, maybe he even has a grandson or something who can run in '08) ;D
-
I concurr with my Finnish friend, and it sounds like this Giuliani fellow is more sensible than most US politicians we hear of on my side of the Atlantic...
-
I'd put Mister Nukular Bom in the White House to do office.
And by "do office" I mean "explode."
-
Barc, there is a GOP Representative that is a lot like Goldwater. Check him out here (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/)
-
Giuliani? Centrist? Liberal? :rofl:
We need that smilie back.
His positions on gun control and abortion were calculated poses intended to win votes from social-liberal New Yorkers, and do not represent the man's ideology or his policies. Under his administration the NYPD's practices got several times more racist than they were, the prison population skyrocketed, Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik used an apartment that was supposed to be for 9/11 rescue workers to conduct an affair, eminent domain was invoked to kick black people out of their homes, and I'm sure there was even more crap that I don't remember. Even his position on gun control wasn't so much a liberal position as an "I'll keep guns out of the hands of blacks" position.
Conservatives, Giuliani is YOUR GUY. He'll do a Romney-esque flip-flop on his abortion and gun control positions within a few months. Mark my words.
-
^ That sounds more like a US politician... Or rather corporate henchman wich would be a more accurate description...
-
I guess it is pretty extreme to be "conservative" nowadays. You know, the US would have no political problems worth mentioning if you just accepted the fact that you're a corporatist oligarchy.
Everyone knows that anyway. You know that bill that was supposed to get us out of Iraq? Well, getting us out of Iraq apparently requires various pork and milk subsidies as well. However, I don't really think there is as much corruption as everybody says, or that it just happens on the right wing of the legislature. And I'd take a corporatist oligarchy over a socialist kleptocracy any day. At least corporations care about what I want. ;D
-
Yeah... right...
-
I like this guy. If he was a bit more subtle it'd be better, though.
-
I like this guy. If he was a bit more subtle it'd be better, though.
People have always said that I have the subtlety of a nuclear warhead. It's true. I come from a region that is more deeply rooted in politics than role play, and candor is a valued virtue there.
-
Giuliani? Centrist? Liberal? :rofl:
We need that smilie back.
His positions on gun control and abortion were calculated poses intended to win votes from social-liberal New Yorkers, and do not represent the man's ideology or his policies. Under his administration the NYPD's practices got several times more racist than they were, the prison population skyrocketed, Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik used an apartment that was supposed to be for 9/11 rescue workers to conduct an affair, eminent domain was invoked to kick black people out of their homes, and I'm sure there was even more crap that I don't remember. Even his position on gun control wasn't so much a liberal position as an "I'll keep guns out of the hands of blacks" position.
Conservatives, Giuliani is YOUR GUY. He'll do a Romney-esque flip-flop on his abortion and gun control positions within a few months. Mark my words.
Oh my. You're the misled one, aren't you?
You think that anyone who's racist is a conservative? ::) Please, get your facts straight. To be conservative is to want smaller government, and more power in the hands of the people. That's the way our nation was founded anyway; why try to turn it into something it wasn't meant to be: a central powerhouse government? Liberals believe in a government that can do everything and be everything to and for the people. In other words, a beaurocratic elite. If you hate the fact that the government had the right to evict black people from their houses, even if by eminent domain (which btw is a pet peeve of conservatives) then I would think you support downsizing government, and not allowing Guliani to have so much power as to be able to kick people out of their houses. Assuming that everything you said is true, which I'm sorry to say I highly doubt.
For one, you repeatedly called Guliani racist... Can you please produce a quote, or something of that nature, where Guliani spouts racist remarks? At the very least, back up your statements with some kind of evidence when you're making accusations this powerful. And what makes you think that Guliani hates black people so bad? If ANYBODY is evicted from their homes because of eminent domain, I call it wrong. Why are you focusing on the race aspect? That is, unless Guliani said that he was choosing to evict them only because they were black? But again, I highly doubt that any politician today is going to come out and say that.
Guliani was the driving force behind the crack-down on crime in New York City. If he had to crack down on certain ethnic groups in order to lower crime rates, then I say all the power to him. Isn't the law supposed to be blind to color? Then why would he turn a blind eye on crimes that are being committed, even if he might open himself to "racism" accusations such as yours by allowing justice to progress? I wish that Guliani would run for mayor of Los Angeles instead of president; the powers that be in that city are so corrupt and inept when it comes to cutting crime rates it's pathetic. The liberal politicos running the city are too worried about pandering to the Latino vote, to the extent that they're afraid to go after the hundreds of large-scale violent Mexican drug gangs destroying the city. If Guliani had been too afraid to go after crime because it might affect his vote from the black population, that's when corruption prevails.
Sorry if we disagree on this, and I'm sorry for the long post.
-
Giuliani? Centrist? Liberal? :rofl:
We need that smilie back.
His positions on gun control and abortion were calculated poses intended to win votes from social-liberal New Yorkers, and do not represent the man's ideology or his policies. Under his administration the NYPD's practices got several times more racist than they were, the prison population skyrocketed, Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik used an apartment that was supposed to be for 9/11 rescue workers to conduct an affair, eminent domain was invoked to kick black people out of their homes, and I'm sure there was even more crap that I don't remember. Even his position on gun control wasn't so much a liberal position as an "I'll keep guns out of the hands of blacks" position.
Conservatives, Giuliani is YOUR GUY. He'll do a Romney-esque flip-flop on his abortion and gun control positions within a few months. Mark my words.
Oh my. You're the misled one, aren't you?
You think that anyone who's racist is a conservative? ::) Please, get your facts straight. To be conservative is to want smaller government, and more power in the hands of the people. That's the way our nation was founded anyway; why try to turn it into something it wasn't meant to be: a central powerhouse government? Liberals believe in a government that can do everything and be everything to and for the people. In other words, a beaurocratic elite. If you hate the fact that the government had the right to evict black people from their houses, even if by eminent domain (which btw is a pet peeve of conservatives) then I would think you support downsizing government, and not allowing Guliani to have so much power as to be able to kick people out of their houses. Assuming that everything you said is true, which I'm sorry to say I highly doubt.
For one, you repeatedly called Guliani racist... Can you please produce a quote, or something of that nature, where Guliani spouts racist remarks? At the very least, back up your statements with some kind of evidence when you're making accusations this powerful. And what makes you think that Guliani hates black people so bad? If ANYBODY is evicted from their homes because of eminent domain, I call it wrong. Why are you focusing on the race aspect? That is, unless Guliani said that he was choosing to evict them only because they were black? But again, I highly doubt that any politician today is going to come out and say that.
Guliani was the driving force behind the crack-down on crime in New York City. If he had to crack down on certain ethnic groups in order to lower crime rates, then I say all the power to him. Isn't the law supposed to be blind to color? Then why would he turn a blind eye on crimes that are being committed, even if he might open himself to "racism" accusations such as yours by allowing justice to progress? I wish that Guliani would run for mayor of Los Angeles instead of president; the powers that be in that city are so corrupt and inept when it comes to cutting crime rates it's pathetic. The liberal politicos running the city are too worried about pandering to the Latino vote, to the extent that they're afraid to go after the hundreds of large-scale violent Mexican drug gangs destroying the city. If Guliani had been too afraid to go after crime because it might affect his vote from the black population, that's when corruption prevails.
Sorry if we disagree on this, and I'm sorry for the long post.
:clap:
And about the long post, this is nothing compared to the ECC. Speeches there are long-winded, thorough, and exhausting to write and read.
-
You think that anyone who's racist is a conservative? ::) Please, get your facts straight. To be conservative is to want smaller government, and more power in the hands of the people. That's the way our nation was founded anyway; why try to turn it into something it wasn't meant to be: a central powerhouse government? Liberals believe in a government that can do everything and be everything to and for the people. In other words, a beaurocratic elite. If you hate the fact that the government had the right to evict black people from their houses, even if by eminent domain (which btw is a pet peeve of conservatives) then I would think you support downsizing government, and not allowing Guliani to have so much power as to be able to kick people out of their houses. Assuming that everything you said is true, which I'm sorry to say I highly doubt.
Bingo! My big gripe with the Republicans these days is that they are just as pro-big-government as the Democrats. Bush has outspent the Dems for his entire term. The Repubs are only for small government when they aren't in charge of it. :(
-
Bingo! My big gripe with the Republicans these days is that they are just as pro-big-government as the Democrats. Bush has outspent the Dems for his entire term. The Repubs are only for small government when they aren't in charge of it. :(
You have to remember, he has had to deal with a war. Expenditures always go up in times of war.
-
Bingo! My big gripe with the Republicans these days is that they are just as pro-big-government as the Democrats. Bush has outspent the Dems for his entire term. The Repubs are only for small government when they aren't in charge of it. :(
You have to remember, he has had to deal with a war. Expenditures always go up in times of war.
Definitely. A war is not a contest between the strength of countries' armies, it is a contest of the size and efficient use of their wallets. In terms of large government, I think it was Madam Hilary calling for socialized health care. You don't see Republicans doing that.
-
And unilateral offensive wars as reaction to tensions the US government crated themselves during the cold war at that...
What goes around comes around, I just mourn the fact that the 9/11 attacks were aimed at civilan targets wich made them an atrocity though not as big an atrocity as the constant US bombings of infrastructure in Iraq since dessert storm combined with the unconditional support of Israel in spite of their atrocities though their neighbours isn't far behind in atrocities either...
-
And unilateral offensive wars as reaction to tensions the US government crated themselves during the cold war at that...
What goes around comes around, I just mourn the fact that the 9/11 attacks were aimed at civilan targets wich made them an atrocity though not as big an atrocity as the constant US bombings of infrastructure in Iraq since dessert storm combined with the unconditional support of Israel in spite of their atrocities though their neighbours isn't far behind in atrocities either...
I have to agree with you, especially on the relentlessly pro-Israel stance our government and populace have taken for the last six decades. I don't support any country that willfully commits such horrible, inhumane acts against unarmed civilians. Poisoning wells, sowing salt into fields, dropping pamphlets with pictures of mutilated corpses out of planes onto villages that have been populated by Arabs for centuries as a warning to get out of Israel before it happens to them, too... and we say we fight terror? This isn't some splinter group; it's the officially recognized government. Both sides of that conflict are so out of line (and have been so since the start) I find it unbelievable that the U.S. supports them.
-
Not to mention not taking action when US-based companies hire mercenaries to drive off native population in south and central america to establish plantations for the US market and then committing US special forces to "defend" those companies when the native population reacts by forming guerillas and fighting back against the companies...
-
Or sending in U.S. forces to recruit (i.e. drum up), train, and outfit a "local" rebellion against a legitimately elected Central American leader because we didn't like his socialist policies.
-
And then the US people wonders why everyone else is pissed at them and don't understand that the US is the "best" nation in the world ever...
-
I know that the US has sub-par international relations, arrogance, blah blah blah etc., but from all the traveling I've done, there is no other place I would rather live.
-
And unilateral offensive wars as reaction to tensions the US government crated themselves during the cold war at that...
What goes around comes around, I just mourn the fact that the 9/11 attacks were aimed at civilan targets wich made them an atrocity though not as big an atrocity as the constant US bombings of infrastructure in Iraq since dessert storm combined with the unconditional support of Israel in spite of their atrocities though their neighbours isn't far behind in atrocities either...
I have to agree with you, especially on the relentlessly pro-Israel stance our government and populace have taken for the last six decades. I don't support any country that willfully commits such horrible, inhumane acts against unarmed civilians. Poisoning wells, sowing salt into fields, dropping pamphlets with pictures of mutilated corpses out of planes onto villages that have been populated by Arabs for centuries as a warning to get out of Israel before it happens to them, too... and we say we fight terror? This isn't some splinter group; it's the officially recognized government. Both sides of that conflict are so out of line (and have been so since the start) I find it unbelievable that the U.S. supports them.
Where'd you hear that? I'd have a hard time believing that without credible sources, so I'm sure you have some. Going off of what I know, I would say that Palestine and Israel do wrongs on both sides, but it'd be hard to find a conflict where one country was all right or all wrong. While you could question the legitimacy of the Israeli state (the powers that be uprooting the natives to give the Israelis a homeland) you could say the same about the Palestinian state, as the Romans uprooted the Israelis and settled Palestinians there. About the question of who commits atrocities, Palestine is not anymore innocent than Israel. They fight, and fight dirty just like the Israelis.
-
I agree with Marsos. Allama and Empire: You're both lovely people, but you guys are starting to act like typical left-wing lunes who unjustly attempt to simplify a complex situation, down to an ignorant conclusion that conveniently fits their agenda. I heard alot of strong accusations, but no sited evidence at all. Please, give me some solid proof and I can take you much more seriously.
Secondly, I think somebody needs a reality check when they begin to blame others for fighting 'dirty' against the Palestinians, or any warring groups of Islam. We're talking about Muslims who fight wars in the name of their god; who massacre innocents by the hundreds because they're "infidels"; who behead non-combatants, and show video footage of the "glorious" proceedings to all the world, and etc. For six decades, Israel has had to fight for its survival, surrounded by a sea of hostile Islamic nations who didn't want her there. And she has triumphed so far, if only by succeeding to exist. I do not condone all that Israel has done in its wars, but I do know that whatever "atrocities" Israel has resorted to, they are next to nothing in comparison to those committed by its enemies, who commit horrible atrocities in the name of their 'god'. Btw, if you want proof of what I say, follow current events for a week. No, three days. Any three days, I'm not choosy.
Why do you think that the Islamic nations of the Middle East happen to hate Israel so much? Because it's the nearest Christian, non-muslim nation. Once they would exterminate Israel, Islamic facsists would next be assaulting other Christian nations around them. They want to pick a fight with anyone who does not share their beliefs, because they believe that is their ticket to paradise. As someone said before, not every muslim is a terrorist, but every terrorist is a muslim (with one or two exceptions). And in this nuclear age, it only takes one to destroy the lives of millions.
Empire and Allama: Unless you two are Muslim, then just remember there are many people in this world who want you and me dead, only because they think their god wants them to kill you (after all, what's religion for? ;D ).
Now, I didn't say all of this in support of the current war, or Israel, or the GOP, or whatever you're thinking. :) I only think that we need to get things in perspective, from both sides, when we talk about the "atrocities" of the US and her allies.
-
I don't think the Muslims are bad. Islam is a religion of peace, and some crazy people who happen to have a lot of power is ruining it's name. Otherwise I agree with you.
-
I have no idea how this discussion got to religion, but I'll add one thing before we [/hijack].
I have chosen to be agnostic partially because there are those in every religion who read something into their religion's doctrine to have an excuse to commit horrible things. Islam has jihad, Christianity had the Crusades (and the Holocaust), Judaism actually had Jesus murdered (PM me if you want details), Hinduism had the many wars over the government of India during Ghandi's day, and Buddism had a recent terrorist group in Japan (recent being late 1990's to 2000) that bombed Tokyo's subway. Yes, nowadays all religious violence seems to be concentrated in Islam, but one can't make the assumption that ALL Muslims are evil and dangerous. Now, [/hijack] and let's talk some politics!
-
I am actually a christian protestant. As such I belive that the message of love that Jesus attempted to spread supercedes pretty much everything. As such I also view the loudest US right-wing "christians" as war mongering heretics.
Also, far from all terrorists are muslim, just as many claim to be christian or Jewish
I never said that the palistinians or any of Israel's neighbours was without blame, in my eyes they are more or less equal. What makes the Israeli atrocities worse is that they are conducted from a stronger position.
And with regards to proof of US atrocities, start with the "indian wars" and slavery, then go forward. Of course, back then they wasn't the only ones in that boat either but that doesn't decrease validity. Also, can you mention any single decade post WW2 where the US hasn't been involved in armed conflict somwhere in the world? Of how many other nations can anyone say the same?
-
People in this day and age still defend imperialism. That's cute.
Unnecessary interventionism to promote personal gain on the expense of others' well-being = being a greedy bastard.
Is someone willing to seriously say the USA hasn't done that?
-
Where'd you hear that? I'd have a hard time believing that without credible sources, so I'm sure you have some. Going off of what I know, I would say that Palestine and Israel do wrongs on both sides, but it'd be hard to find a conflict where one country was all right or all wrong. While you could question the legitimacy of the Israeli state (the powers that be uprooting the natives to give the Israelis a homeland) you could say the same about the Palestinian state, as the Romans uprooted the Israelis and settled Palestinians there. About the question of who commits atrocities, Palestine is not anymore innocent than Israel. They fight, and fight dirty just like the Israelis.
I agree with you completely in that both sides of the conflict are in the wrong and do horrible things in the name of claiming/reclaiming their "rightful" territory. I will cite some sources after the next quotation.
I agree with Marsos. Allama and Empire: You're both lovely people, but you guys are starting to act like typical left-wing lunes who unjustly attempt to simplify a complex situation, down to an ignorant conclusion that conveniently fits their agenda. I heard alot of strong accusations, but no sited evidence at all. Please, give me some solid proof and I can take you much more seriously.
I was not aware I was writing a thesis here and needed to cite sources, seeing as how no one has been doing so for the entire debate, but if you would like to ask me for some I would be more than glad to give them to you. However, rude name-calling and double-standards requiring only the people who take positions you don't agree with to present evidence is neither necessary nor in good keeping with the rules of civilized debate.
Much of my information comes from this book: Whose Land, Whose Promise? (http://www.amazon.com/Whose-Land-Promise-Christians-Palestinians/dp/0829816607/ref=sr_1_1/103-7473809-4077466?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1176811923&sr=1-1) It is a very well-researched work and has an extensive list of citations. This book led me to a lot of independent research, and if you would like me to list some articles and whatnot simply ask and kindly allow the time to compile them; I do not have any of my papers or lists with me here at work and will have to scramble some together on the spot. I would also be willing to fetch direct quotes from the book once I return home. A Christian scholar wrote it, so it does reference the Bible on occasion (just a warning if that bothers you) and is targeted towards an audience of evangelicals in the United States whose news stations choose not to report on both sides of the conflict and who tend to hold a very biased view (mostly out of being unintentionally uninformed). I read it for a New Testament course in college and it sparked a several week long series of discussions, debates, and essays.
Why do you think that the Islamic nations of the Middle East happen to hate Israel so much? Because it's the nearest Christian, non-muslim nation. Once they would exterminate Israel, Islamic facsists would next be assaulting other Christian nations around them.
I think any Israeli you could pick out of a crowd would be pretty pissed to be called a Christian. They’re a Jewish nation, the only one on the planet. The hatred they face is caused considerably by the difference in religion, but it's not as simple as "I am Muslim, he is Jew, I hate him." Mostly it's because they occupy a land that is considered holy to the Muslim community (and to the other two Abrahamic faiths) and neither believes the other has the right to live there. The argument could be made that, though they would still be hated and probably fought against, the conflict would not be anywhere near as heated if Israel had been established elsewhere in the Middle East.
They want to pick a fight with anyone who does not share their beliefs, because they believe that is their ticket to paradise. As someone said before, not every muslim is a terrorist, but every terrorist is a muslim (with one or two exceptions). And in this nuclear age, it only takes one to destroy the lives of millions.
That sounds like the dogma of someone who only watches/reads mainstream American news reports. There are hundreds, - nay, thousands - of terrorists in this world that are not Muslims.
Now, I didn't say all of this in support of the current war, or Israel, or the GOP, or whatever you're thinking. :) I only think that we need to get things in perspective, from both sides, when we talk about the "atrocities" of the US and her allies.
Don’t fret, I wouldn’t have made such an assumption anyway. ^_^
-
Alana, dearest, you're taking it too seriously, because anyone who says something like this:
They want to pick a fight with anyone who does not share their beliefs, because they believe that is their ticket to paradise. As someone said before, not every muslim is a terrorist, but every terrorist is a muslim (with one or two exceptions). And in this nuclear age, it only takes one to destroy the lives of millions.
...is either a comedian or a waste of oxygen.
So gentlemen, which is it?
-
I do take my debates rather too seriously sometimes, you're right. There's no reason to expect strangers on the internet to discuss things properly or especially to know anyone else's moral/factual integrity, but it grates on my nerves to have it called into question anyway. I just get very passionate about the issues I care about. :)
-
I suppose I'm a greedy imperialist pigdog bastard.
-
pretty much, but you can hang with us anyway :trout:
-
I suppose I'm a greedy imperialist pigdog bastard.
And we love you for it :drunks:
-
And we love your long winded Marxist rants :fight:
-
@ KR and Solnath- I know y'all are from a different country, and I know the US hasn't been doing a stellar job in its policies, but let's not turn this into a 'I hate the US' thread, hm? I mean, come on, the thread is originally for who you would vote for in the 2008 American election.
And for you liberal Marxist whatever-you-call-yourselves: Get over it.
-
I am actually a christian protestant. As such I belive that the message of love that Jesus attempted to spread supercedes pretty much everything. As such I also view the loudest US right-wing "christians" as war mongering heretics.
Also, far from all terrorists are muslim, just as many claim to be christian or Jewish
I never said that the palistinians or any of Israel's neighbours was without blame, in my eyes they are more or less equal. What makes the Israeli atrocities worse is that they are conducted from a stronger position.
And with regards to proof of US atrocities, start with the "indian wars" and slavery, then go forward. Of course, back then they wasn't the only ones in that boat either but that doesn't decrease validity. Also, can you mention any single decade post WW2 where the US hasn't been involved in armed conflict somwhere in the world? Of how many other nations can anyone say the same?
I agree, we should keep this focused on politics, not religion, however, I never said that I believe ALL Muslims to be evil, or dangerous.
Empire, you find these Israeli "atrocities" (btw, could you please site one such horror as you describe, with names, dates, places, etc.) to be worse than others only because they are committed from a stronger position? I can hardly believe your claim to be Christian now, since I thought all believers of the Bible believed in an Absolute Truth, which includes calling a spade a spade, and in this instance, a wrong a wrong. I would never say that an act is much less acceptable when committed by one party than if committed by another. Might alone does not make right, or wrong, for that matter. If ANYONE commits what you consider an 'atrocity', I should think you would be horrified. But when you only consider an act an atrocity after checking who committed it, (in this case, a strong nation like Israel) then I can only think that your political beliefs are strongly affecting your sense of reason.
Now, I asked you to produce evidence of the multiple US "atrocities" you spoke of earlier. And you responded with:
And with regards to proof of US atrocities, start with the "indian wars" and slavery, then go forward.
::)
Well, when you made the accusations, I had assumed that you meant sometime within the last 100 years. Sorry, I don't mean to be mocking, but this is an extremely poor foundation to base such strong, and potentially offensive accusations. If you want to discuss the rights/wrongs of the Indian Wars and Slavery, I would LOVE to, but in another topic thread. Feel free to start one whenever you like.
You then found fault with the fact that the US has been involved in some type of armed conflict in almost every decade since WWII:
Also, can you mention any single decade post WW2 where the US hasn't been involved in armed conflict somwhere in the world?
Well, to answer your question first, the 1980s. Unless you want to count extremely minor police actions somewhere in Africa. But come on, they have bigger street fights in L.A. ;D
As someone said before, "with great power, comes great responsibility." (I think they actually used that line in Spiderman too) Empire, when WWII ended, England's economy was in such an exhausted state, that the great Churchill turned to President Truman, and told him that the US would have to accept the responsibility that came with the title of "superpower." England could no longer support the democratic people throughout the world who wished to defend themselves against the spread of communism; Churchill asked Truman and the United States to take up this burden. The result was the Truman Doctrine. Just as with Monroe's Doctrine, Truman made a statement to the world, in which he said that the United States would go anywhere, bear any burden, pay any price, to help any friend, and to fight any foe of freedom. These pledge was renewed by John F. Kennedy a few years later.
This is why we went to Korea, and risked a World War III. This is why we felt obligated to help South Vietnam repel the flow of communism, even though we lost over 50,000 good men doing it. And when the Cold War ended, our pledge to accept the responsibility that comes with being a Superpower still held true.
Many have accused us of attempting to be 'world police.' Well, all I can say, is that if the situation were slightly changed, and we chose not to help others when they needed us, the entire world would be calling us the 'the filthy rich nation of fat billionaires that chooses to hoard its money instead of aiding others.' Damned if you do, damned if you don't. God knows, most Americans don't want to act as 'world police.' Believe me, it's a right pain in the rear.
But I guess it all boils down to whether you believe that great responsibility comes with great power. Answer that, and you know where you stand.
-
Allama wrote:
I think any Israeli you could pick out of a crowd would be pretty pissed to be called a Christian. They’re a Jewish nation, the only one on the planet. The hatred they face is caused considerably by the difference in religion, but it's not as simple as "I am Muslim, he is Jew, I hate him." Mostly it's because they occupy a land that is considered holy to the Muslim community (and to the other two Abrahamic faiths) and neither believes the other has the right to live there. The argument could be made that, though they would still be hated and probably fought against, the conflict would not be anywhere near as heated if Israel had been established elsewhere in the Middle East
*slaps self in forehead* DUH! No clue why I called Israel Christian, so sorry about that. Maybe it's because a friend of mine, who is Jewish, sometimes calls himself 'of Christian beliefs,' though not actually religiously Christian. And I agree, we don't need to turn this into a board of foot-long book reports, I was only interested in finding out about some of the sources for your accusations. Btw, usually, it's the people who are trying to accuse someone else of something who have to prove their point, not the ones defending the point. Otherwise, I would expect everyone to speak with some form of evidence to back up their stronger statements.
And Soly, about your 'comedian' quip: if you disagree, please give me something I can think about. Try to reason with me; I'm not that hard-headed you know. :) But when you get down in the mud, don't expect me to follow you.
-
I definately support the Israeli nation, but, as any nation, they have their controversies and it's not like they never committed any bad deed. I don't think the land taken during the Six Day War was justified, they could have just defeated their enemies and left things alone. Maybe the Israelis should give up the land they took during the Six Day War, connect it all through a narrow strip of land, and give it to the Palestinians. Would that be so hard to do?
But I do agree with the Empire in that the US committed TONS of atrocities. Watch this (http://albinoblacksheep.com/flash/lies), but skip past the first part. The worst one since the end of WWII (Well, at the very very end) would probably be Harry Truman calling Hiroshima a "military base" and "we wanted to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians". Or the idea of "We'll nuke Japan until they surrender". Or Bill Clinton's lie of not knowing about the Rwandan Genocide.
-
Lying and inaction is an atrocity?
-
When you:
1. Deliberately lie about killing thousands of civilians
2. Don't act when hundreds of thousands of people are killed genocidically
it is.
Not to mention that the bombings were a war crime anyway. One, Japan was basically defeated already. Two, let's assume the Germans developed the bomb and dropped them on semi-important American cities, but later lost the war. Do you have any doubt the Germans that developed the bomb would have been called war criminals and hanged?
-
I wasn't talking about Truman lying, just Clinton. We all know dropping nukes on Japan was to show them off to the USSR.
-
It's still 750,000 at least, 1,000,000 at most people dead from inaction. That's not an atrocity?
Secondly, it was to win the war, but since we're Americans, we get the credit for winning even though we lost the least people. If we wanted to show them off to the USSR (Which I don't see why we would want to, we were allies and very few people worried about them at that time), why not show them off on an island instead of deliberately killing thousands of civilians? Is it perhaps because the US is atrocious, but able to hide behind the mask of "great democracy"?
I also find it funny how we objected to making the A-bomb Dome in Hiroshima a UNESCO World Heritage Site. We still can't live up to our moral mistake?
-
It's still 750,000 at least, 1,000,000 at most people dead from inaction. That's not an atrocity?
Secondly, it was to win the war, but since we're Americans, we get the credit for winning even though we lost the least people. If we wanted to show them off to the USSR (Which I don't see why we would want to, we were allies and very few people worried about them at that time), why not show them off on an island instead of deliberately killing thousands of civilians? Is it perhaps because the US is atrocious, but able to hide behind the mask of "great democracy"?
I also find it funny how we objected to making the A-bomb Dome in Hiroshima a UNESCO World Heritage Site. We still can't live up to our moral mistake?
No, we apparently can't. But we don't have a monopoly on that. Consider the atrocities committed by Belgium in the Scramble for Africa. They would cut off people's hands to account for ammunition (to make sure soldiers didn't waste ammunition, they had to account for each bullet with a human hand.) in order to not face court martial. But the museum in Belgium about the Congo describes African colonization as a noble effort. But like Talstadt said, this isn't an "I hate America" thread. Let's move on.
-
I don't hate America so much as I hate democracy (Well, republic. Direct democracy, while I don't like as much as monarchy, at least is more representative of the population). If America was a direct democracy or monarchy, honestly, I'd find nothing wrong with it. It's just that America pretends to be all good and democratic when it's not.
-
Wait.....wait.......you're the one who bitches about democracy being a tyranny by a majority! How the fuck do you support direct democracies rather than representative republics?
-
Because in a direct democracy, everyone votes directly on everything so no one race/gender/class can be superior to everyone else. Yes, it's unavoidable that there's going to be a majority, but in a republic that gets overblown, because the representatives tend to be all of the same type. In a direct democracy there's still those other people that aren't in a republic. For example, take this:
In Republic A, 95% of the people representing are white males, but only 75% of the population is white. This gives the white males a huge advantage. If A was to become a direct democracy, 75% is 75%, not 95%. This way, there's still tyranny by majority, but not so extreme like in Republic A.
But like I said, I prefer monarchy more than democracy, direct or republican.
-
Because in a direct democracy, everyone votes directly on everything so no one race/gender/class can be superior to everyone else. Yes, it's unavoidable that there's going to be a majority, but in a republic that gets overblown, because the representatives tend to be all of the same type. In a direct democracy there's still those other people that aren't in a republic. For example, take this:
In Republic A, 95% of the people representing are white males, but only 75% of the population is white. This gives the white males a huge advantage. If A was to become a direct democracy, 75% is 75%, not 95%. This way, there's still tyranny by majority, but not so extreme like in Republic A.
But like I said, I prefer monarchy more than democracy, direct or republican.
What does white males have to do with it? White males have different opinions. Our divisions are political, not racial. You'll find that while 95% of the representatives may be white males, this does not make a dominating party, as white males are not necessarily united on every issue, or even most of them.
-
Can you please tell me how group 'x' gets more representation than group 'y'? I was unaware that one group held more power than others.
-
And Soly, about your 'comedian' quip: if you disagree, please give me something I can think about. Try to reason with me; I'm not that hard-headed you know. :) But when you get down in the mud, don't expect me to follow you.
I did try to give you my point by emphasising the line in your post. I'm just not sure whether you were being serious when you claimed that every terrorist barring one or two are muslims as that simply is not true. If you were, I'd like you to think about that. If you weren't, well, that's an odd spot to change attitudes.
-
Ok, My last post in this thread is to give two examples of US atrocities: Guantanamo, status: currently going on. Abu Graib: was revealed in 2006 but had probably gone on since the first year of the occupation.
And yes, with great power comes great responsibility. I don't belive the US has respected that responsibility, especially not since that responsibility also encompasses beeing a good example to developing nations in various stages. Something wich a corporate oligarchy never will be. The proud democratic US republic that once was is dead, realise that and you might be able to restore it.
The only thing I find interesting about this election is wether the US will get it's first female or first black president, other than that is' the same as usual one of two of puppets controlled by different companies
-
Btw, usually, it's the people who are trying to accuse someone else of something who have to prove their point, not the ones defending the point. Otherwise, I would expect everyone to speak with some form of evidence to back up their stronger statements.
Sweetie, I think you were the one claiming all but one or two terrorists are Muslims. I didn't see any sources cited there, nor statistics, nor even a scrap of evidence. Clearly you said this without bothering to research worldwide terrorism in the slightest. Hence, double standard.
I agree, we should keep this focused on politics, not religion, however, I never said that I believe ALL Muslims to be evil, or dangerous.
Don't worry, no one said you did.
Empire, you find these Israeli "atrocities" (btw, could you please site one such horror as you describe, with names, dates, places, etc.) to be worse than others only because they are committed from a stronger position? I can hardly believe your claim to be Christian now, since I thought all believers of the Bible believed in an Absolute Truth, which includes calling a spade a spade, and in this instance, a wrong a wrong. I would never say that an act is much less acceptable when committed by one party than if committed by another. Might alone does not make right, or wrong, for that matter. If ANYONE commits what you consider an 'atrocity', I should think you would be horrified. But when you only consider an act an atrocity after checking who committed it, (in this case, a strong nation like Israel) then I can only think that your political beliefs are strongly affecting your sense of reason.
I highly doubt he intended to downplay the atrocities committed by other nations in any way; Israel was simply the one relevant to our prior discussion. As a Christian myself, I believe all crimes against humanity to be crimes against God, no matter who perpetrates them, and I'm sure Empire agrees.
One of many examples of the atrocities we mentioned is the Sabra and Shatila massacre of 1982. On September 16-18 of that year Israeli forces surrounded the area of two Palestinian refugee camps as un-armed civilians were raped and slaughtered in a three-day orgy of vengeance for the assassination of Lebanese leader Bashir Gemayel. The number of those killed is still in question as evidence has been obscured and justice has been sought in vain by those who survived, but it is estimated in the thousands.
Human rights abuses are still going on there today. For example, in February of 2001 the U.S. State Department released a report on human rights violations during the previous year, entitled: "Country Reports on Human Rights Practices 2000: Occupied Territories". This report stated the following:
"Israel's overall human rights record in the occupied territories [is] poor....Israeli security forces committed numerous serious human rights abuses during the year....Since the violence began, [September 2000] Israeli security units often used excessive force against Palestinian demonstrators. Israeli security forces sometimes exceeded their rules of engagement, which provide that live fire is only to be used when the lives of soldiers, police, or civilians are in imminent danger....Israeli security forces abused Palestinians in detention suspected of security offenses....There were numerous credible allegations that police beat persons in detention. Three Palestinian prisoners died in Israeli custody under ambiguous circumstances during the year. Prison conditions are poor. Prolonged detention, limits on due process, and infringements on privacy rights remained problems. Israeli security forces sometimes impeded the provision of medical assistance to Palestinian civilians. Israeli security forces destroyed Palestinian-owned agricultural land. Israeli authorities censored Palestinian publications, placed limits on freedom of assembly, and restricted freedom of movement for Palestinians.”
Please feel free to check my facts. If you would like more, PM me and I’ll compile a list.
You then found fault with the fact that the US has been involved in some type of armed conflict in almost every decade since WWII:
Also, can you mention any single decade post WW2 where the US hasn't been involved in armed conflict somwhere in the world?
Well, to answer your question first, the 1980s. Unless you want to count extremely minor police actions somewhere in Africa. But come on, they have bigger street fights in L.A. ;D
1981, 1986 - U.S./Libya Conflict
1982-1984 - U.S. Intervention in Lebanon
1983 - U.S. Invasion of Grenada
1985-1986 - Iran-Contra: This is my “favorite” of the 80’s armed conflicts we got involved in. Members of the U.S. executive branch headed by Ronald Reagan sold armaments to Iran and used the money gained to fund the Contra rebellion against the Sandinista government in Nicaragua, and continued to do so after being strictly forbidden by Congress. For this one our soldiers didn't actually fight like in others I've mentioned, but we sure as hell got involved.
1987-1988 - “Operation Ernest Will”/The Tanker War
1989 - U.S. Invasion of Panama
-
Allama, like I said, we have bigger street fights in L.A. :)
Soly, I think our main problem here is the definition of 'terrorist.' My idea of a terrorist is a person who is a member of a violent cult who committs suicide bombings through a belief that they are serving their god. We could just call them assholes, but these are peole who fight under a banner, and supposedly have religious beliefs that are 'responsible' for their actions. I wouldn't call a guy who robs a bank a terrorist, or a person who blows himself up in a crowd because he's mad at his mother. It may be a form of terror warfare, but my idea of an actual "terorist," especially in this day and age, is different. I realize that this is my own definition, and tho everyone I know pretty much agrees with it, you might consider anyone who commits a crime a terrorist, and in that case we would be talking apples and oranges.
Now, Myro, I have a hard time swallowing the fact that you can stand up and seriously say that you approve of a monarchy over any form of democracy, but your given reasons for this belief are through a hate of a majority dominating the minority... WHAT HAPPENED TO YOUR BRAIN, MAN??? :) If you think that "the little guy" doesn't get heard in a Democracy, for crying out loud, what do you think'll happen in a monarchy? There's a reason that monarchies are not alive and well today.
Myro, you said:
When you:
1. Deliberately lie about killing thousands of civilians
2. Don't act when hundreds of thousands of people are killed genocidically
it is.
Not to mention that the bombings were a war crime anyway. One, Japan was basically defeated already. Two, let's assume the Germans developed the bomb and dropped them on semi-important American cities, but later lost the war. Do you have any doubt the Germans that developed the bomb would have been called war criminals and hanged?
So, you think it's an 'atrocity' that the US didn't jump in and save the world during the Rwanda conflict? I thought everyone was complaining that the US were trying to be the "world's police"???? Do you see the hypocrisy here? We do something, we get jumped on; we don't do something, and we still get jumped on. If you think the world hates the US, you have no clue how SICK I am of hearing the rest of the world belly-ache, wine and complain. What else do you want the US to do, change your diapers???
Myro, if you think that the use of the A-bombs were unnecessary, you haven't done a very thorough study on WWII. Ever hear about Tarawa? Ever see the film clips of Japanese residents on the island throwing themselves and their childen over cliffs, to escape the "shame" of surrendering? If Japanese soldiers weren't willing to surrender when all was lost on a God-forsaken tiny sliver of sand out in the middle of the Pacific, what would we have to do to make him surrender his own homeland? Japanese records show that no one in Japan was contemplating surrender before the use of the A-bombs. Even after the two nukes were dropped, Japanese war ministers were all for going to the very end. It was only the Emperor who was unwilling to sacrifice his people's lives so needlessly, and accepted surrender. It became very clear after the war that the Japanese people were braced to go to the last man, in successive lines of defense, including the remnants of the army, old men and boys, and women and children. The Japanese people were conditioned to not accept surrender, under any circumstances. Did you ever see "The Last Samurai"? That shows some of this mentality among the Japanese. It also became clear that we saved countless Japanese lives by not invading the islands, because of their own suicidal intentions.
Furthermore, you can say that Hiroshima was not a military base. But do you know how long we had been bombing Japanese manufacturing plants, factories, bases, airfields, etc.? Their ability to wage war had ceased to exist. Yet they refused to even contemplate surrender. There was nothing LEFT to bomb in Japan. Hiroshima was a large economic center of Japan, and therefore, the foremost "military" target. The same with Nagasaki.
EDIT: Allama, I am not trying to condone any war crime committed by Israel. And I do know that Israel has done some pretty horrific things. However, the only reason I'm providing their defense, is that your reasons for choosing to find fault with Israel over its enemies, who also committed warcrimes, appall me.
-
Then your definition of terrorist is extremely narrowed down as the official definition of terrorist is anyone who uses fear to attempt to force others to acchive a specific goal.
As such, there are loads of domestic terrorists in both the US and Europe including organizations all the way from KKK to our swedish "Nationalsocialistisk Front" and "Antifascistisk Aktion" along with various organized criminal organizations and biker gangs.
-
Like ^ said about terrorism, the top three terrorist "factions" in human history are, in terms of extensive operation:
1) The Roman Catholic Church
2) Western Imperialists
3) The Soviet Union under Stalin.
To say that muslim terrorists are the only terrorists is like saying that your "apples and oranges" are the only foods.
-
VOTE POPULIST!
-
Soly, I think our main problem here is the definition of 'terrorist.' My idea of a terrorist is a person who is a member of a violent cult who committs suicide bombings through a belief that they are serving their god. We could just call them assholes, but these are peole who fight under a banner, and supposedly have religious beliefs that are 'responsible' for their actions. I wouldn't call a guy who robs a bank a terrorist, or a person who blows himself up in a crowd because he's mad at his mother. It may be a form of terror warfare, but my idea of an actual "terorist," especially in this day and age, is different. I realize that this is my own definition, and tho everyone I know pretty much agrees with it, you might consider anyone who commits a crime a terrorist, and in that case we would be talking apples and oranges.
Hun, "your" definition fits dozens of non-Muslim terrorist groups around the world. Violent religious and/or political cults kill innocent civilians in sad attempts to prove a point or get attention for the "rightness" of their cause all the time, and a great many of them are Caucasian or Hispanic or Asian, etc. Again, I am willing to cite examples if you request it.
Oh, and for the record, I don't think all violent criminals are terrorists. I think you'd be very hard-pressed to find anyone who believes that.
EDIT: Allama, I am not trying to condone any war crime committed by Israel. And I do know that Israel has done some pretty horrific things. However, the only reason I'm providing their defense, is that your reasons for choosing to find fault with Israel over its enemies, who also committed warcrimes, appall me.
When did I ever condone what Israel's enemies have done, or say I didn't despise their violent actions as much as those of Israel? I simply used Israel as an example of how much the U.S. only cares about other countries' human rights violations if we're not allied with them. I think violence against civilians is unforgivable no matter who perpetrates it. Kindly do not put words in my mouth.
-
U.S. only cares about other countries' human rights violations if we're not allied with them.
For the first time, I agree wholeheartedly with a socialist.
-
@ Solnath- Just in case you didn't get it (and I'm sure you did, but just clarifying), the apples and oranges thing is a metaphor for "we're talking about two different things".
-
Aye, but versatility exists in speech.
-
" A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which debt he proposes to pay off with your money "
" It is sobering to reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence "
" To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical "
" Here's your enemy for this week, the government says. And some gullible Americans click their heels and salute – often without knowing who or even where the enemy of the week is "
" If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's free "
" Americans have the right and advantage of being armed – unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. "
" The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the blessings. The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery "
" If you want government to intervene domestically, you're a liberal. If you want government to intervene overseas, you're a conservative. If you want government to intervene everywhere, you're a moderate. If you don't want government to intervene anywhere, you're an extremist "
" A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away. "
" There is no virtue in compulsory government charity, and there is no virtue in advocating it. A politician who portrays himself as "caring" and "sensitive" because he wants to expand the government's charitable programs is merely saying that he's willing to try to do good with other people's money. Well, who isn't? And a voter who takes pride in supporting such programs is telling us that he'll do good with his own money – if a gun is held to his head "
" The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. "
Just a few of my favorite political quotes.
-
"The man who often quotes others has nothing of his own to say."
-
It's really not all that often, just a few here and there.
-
/me points at Ryaz's sig.
-
Erm, 2?
-
Two in every post, but now we're sidetracking again.
-
Love the quotes, Ryaz. :clap:
Sorry, Allama, didn't mean to ever put words in your mouth, but all I remember is that you, along with the other radical left-wingers, were commenting on U.S. atrocities. I asked someone to please explain to me when these atrocities occurred; then you all moved on to accusing Israel of committing atrocities. Someone did mention the use of the A-bombs and Clinton's inaction during the Rwanda conflict, but I already addressed that. So, sorry if I lost you in the crowd.
-
Since we're sharing quotes:
"There once was a man from Nantucket,
Who wanted to sell me a bucket,
But he could not, because.
There were too many laws,
So he threw up his hands and said, 'Vote Libertarian!'"
"The difference between libertarianism and socialism is that libertarians will tolerate the existence of a socialist community, but socialists can't tolerate a libertarian community."
"COMMUNISM: Liberation of the people from the burdens of liberty."
-
Why can't people make the small effort of distinguishing between Communism and Stalinism?
-
Because the only three Communist nations were/are led by dictators or an authoritarian party.
-
They were never Communist.
-
And the only reason that they were dictatorships was because they all indirectly or directly stemmed from Stalinist interference. If Trotsky had won the power struggle then the whole world would be a communist utopia.
-
I'm sure that keeps you sound asleep at night :)
-
Commy Russia (your Stalinism), Commy China, and Commy Cuba... point in case.
-
Stalinism, Maoism and, hmm, not sure if it has any specific -ism-name. All are totalitarian states, none have but a whiff of Communism. You really should study other ideologies than your own before attacking them blindly.
-
Carrat: In your dreams, my friend.
-
Trotskyism is the only perfect ideology.
-
Hey, don't blame me, blame all the books that say it, and the teachers whose job it is to teach it.
-
In your dreams, my friend.
In our dreams you'll know what you talk about? Hopefully it could be reality as well.
CT, Trotskyism was not so great as you promote it to be. Trotsky followed Lenin and Lenin was not a Communist in heart, either.
Talmann, I blame you for not filtering the Cold War propaganda they teach even us here. :D
-
Such as...?
-
Such as the fact that the Stalinist claim that the Comintern and Cominfrom promoted Communism or that the USSR was ever truly socialist, for that matter. The whole anti-Communism aspect that exists today is because of one powerful leader naming his totalitarianism as Communist and/or Socialist. The same applies to national socialism, which by itself is not such a bad form of government as they come, excepting that it has a seriously negative connonation to it thanks to Hitler.
-
One could say that's your perspective since you ARE socialist. I could say the same about fascism since I'm on the right end of the spectrum, however I'm not. To some people, it's all clumped together because there's not much difference.
-
You communists always say "They're not communist" as if to shift the blame from you. At least us capitalists admit we're not perfect. Stalinism is communism. It's a communist school of thought. It's not Marxism, but it is communism, so you still can't shift the blame from you.
-
Moving this to avoid further sidetracking.
-
Barc, you still hasn't answered about the US atrocities currently beeing committed on the Guantanamo base or those that up until a year ago was going on in Abu Graib and other coalition prisons in Iraq and probably has started up again now that the media coverage has laxed.
Or that US laws under "the patriot act" takes the right to unilatterally kidnap and incarcerate other nations's citizens on suspicion only, for unlimited time and without presenting evidence. It also explicitly allows torture of suspected "terrorists" event though it is prooved that torture isn't a reliable way to extract information. In addition to all this, it has been written in a way as to disguise the meaning of the words.
-
lets move that to the other thread, hm?
-
Yes, that would probably be best, MOD!?
-
Barc, you still hasn't answered about the US atrocities currently beeing committed on the Guantanamo base or those that up until a year ago was going on in Abu Graib and other coalition prisons in Iraq and probably has started up again now that the media coverage has laxed.
Or that US laws under "the patriot act" takes the right to unilatterally kidnap and incarcerate other nations's citizens on suspicion only, for unlimited time and without presenting evidence. It also explicitly allows torture of suspected "terrorists" event though it is prooved that torture isn't a reliable way to extract information. In addition to all this, it has been written in a way as to disguise the meaning of the words.
Abu Graib... You know, you're right, it would probably be much nicer for us to just video tape our guards beheading the detainees! I mean, that would be MUCH better than putting underwear over their heads, right?
Where do you think you're coming from, calling Guantanamo an 'atrocity'??? Do you have any idea who is IN Guantanamo? Granted, I'm not advocating torture, or even this watered-down version of it. But, hey, when we're talking about captured and convicted terrorists, I couldn't care less what happens to them. So, if it shocks all of you, that's sweet. But then I want you to sit down and watch the Daniel Pearl video. Then tell me who we should be accusing of war crimes.
Besides that, most of the Guantanamo 'scandal' was pretty much made up, exaggerated, and hinted at being much more than it was. Did you hear about one detainee's account of the "torture" he endured? They stuck him in a cell and blew cold air at him. Um... it's called air conditioning, Mohamed. You're in Cuba, after all. ;D So, he asked them to turn it off. And they did.
Don't you really hurt for the poor guy? ::)
-
And what gives you the universal right to decide who is a terrorist and who isn't?
One atrocity can never be excused by another and you have no better information than I about what really happened in there, only the captives knows and don't try to dismiss it as exaggerations, there is NO justification of torture regardless if it leaves physical marks or not.
-
OHNO3S!!!!!!!!!!!1SHIFT HE GUT AIRCUNDITONED!
-
Well, Empire, obviously you consider this a full-blown atrocity, even though you admitted that no one really knows what actually happened. Like I said, in this situation, I'm not capable of sympathizing with any such 'victims,' regardless of what happened; not after what they have done to so many of my countrymen, and to so many other free people the world over. And I can't really fathom how anyone can.
-
So just because they maybe were at the wrong place at the wrong time with the wrong facial features makes them a terrorist? I doubt even half of those ILLEGALLY inprisoned there has any connection stronger than that to any fanatical organization.
And considdering what your countrymen has done over the history you certainly have no right to cast the first stone.
Drop the "we are the victims"-act, it's just not belivable coming from a yank.
-
Empire, put yourself in our position. Some guys take over a plane and destroy a building, killing thousands. The men on the plane were known to have communicated with other people, who would be trying to continue the terrorism. So the government finds and imprisons them. So you're saying you would rather have more people killed then have a few guys imprisoned? I would side with the people and say, don't imprison them, killings much quicker and costs less.
-
Sheesh... Well, congratulations Talmann, you have just become the same type of monsters you claim to want to stop... :clap: :shrug:
-
Difference between killing someone who's gonna be in jail for life anyway and deliberately killing thousands because you hate their country.
-
A killing is still a killing and makes whoever does it a moster even if it's by proxy.
-
Your opinion.. :) Now... let's get back on subject and move any further arguements to the other thread, hm?
-
Not opinion, fact. My opinion is that you are an uncivilized citizen of an uncivilized barbarian nation which unfortunately happens to be the most dangerous nation on the planet at the same time.
And I second the other part, I'll leave you yanks to discuss which corporate puppet to have control of the button next on your own.
-
It's a shame Bush can't run again, but if I lived in the US, I would probably vote for Edwards, he seems honest enough.
-
Edwards spends $400 on haircuts, which I find really odd. I'm not sure I could vote for him because he supports free healthcare (Which is impossible in America. Our Controller General has already said we can't keep up with what we've already promised, let alone what that would do) and is 'not yet ready' to support gay marriage. However, he wants to increase the amount of work visas for immigrants (great) and he only wants gradual troop withdrawal in Iraq all the while training the Iraqi soldiers, which is not a bad platform at all.
However, I shall do a plug for a man I have already donated to. This guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul) is my absolute number one choice for the Presidency. Shame he doesn't get much publicity.
-
I like John Edwards myself, and he has my support. However, most Democrats, I would vote for, over most Republicans. However...
NOT Hillary. She's antivideogame. That means she's against something that I'm for. And since I'm Jewish, that means I get to say she's antisemitic. :)
I am, of course, kidding about the last sentence, in case anyone thought I was being serious. Again, I WAS COMPLETELY KIDDING.
Anyway, I still can't support her because she's antivideogame. The same reason I could also never vote for Lieberman.
-
I am, of course, kidding about the last sentence, in case anyone thought I was being serious. Again, I WAS COMPLETELY KIDDING.
/me rolls on the floor laughing.
-
Canada for President, 2008!! ;D
I'm supporting John Edwards, expressly because of his notion of universal health care. The United States and Mexico are the only developed nations who fail to provide universal health care for their populations. The United States is also the nation that spends the most on health care - even though an extremely significant percentage of the population isn't covered. That means that every other industrialized nation is getting MORE health care for LESS money. Something is wrong, yes?
Consider this - somebody with no health care gets sick. They can't afford to go to the doctor's office because they have no health care, and they can't afford to take a sick day because the US doesn't require businesses to provide paid sick days. So they go to work every day. They're getting sicker and sicker, and getting everyone in their place of business sick too. Now all those people have to go to the doctor (if they can afford it) while our first person is just getting sicker and sicker until he eventually collapses. Now he's taken in to the hospital and requires major surgery, which is MUCH more expensive than the simple medication he would have required if addressed immediately (in the majority of cases, early treatment and preventive maintenance are MUCH cheaper than emergency treatment of a developed disease or injury).
Add on top of this the fact that health care in America comes with the added expense of millions of dollars of lobbying, and major profit markups, and advertising expenses (I'm supposed to REQUEST medicine from my doctor? Isn't that HIS job?), and you see how not having universal health care is dramatically RAISING our costs.
If this little anecdote isn't proof enough, investigate the actual numbers, and compare the US health care market with the universal health care of other developed nations.
-
I'm voting Democratic. I feel that Democrats are more willing to compromise than Republicans. I'm pretty much middle-of-the-road, and really, I'm sick of Republicans representing themselves as complete morons. I'm thinking they need to regroup for a few years.