# Forum About Russia Politics  A brief word on US dominance and world capital.

## Doorak

Why does the USA dominate the world? Why does capitalism dominate the world? It's wrong! A system that promotes putting other people down, so one can make oneself wealthier is ugly...
 George Bush doesn't lead a democracy, around one thousand votes were "burnt" (destroyed) and the media seemed to mostly overlook and forget this! What will stop the only world superpower from doing this in other countries, to support her own agenda? Nothing. What is happening in Iraq? What has happened in so many countries "liberated" by this rogue state?  We know the answer.
 How can anyone rule out socialism when capitalism is making the poor poorer and the rich richer? In Australia, for example, a mere 4% owns over 40% of the countries' wealth... and Australia is a fairly well-off country.
 Capitalism makes poorer govt.s struggle with each other to gain international investments. In order to attract the wealthy nations, these countries must make their own country appear more attractive that other countries. For the workers of these countries this means: lower wages, bad health plans, and no unions. The less rights the workers have, the less money foreign companies have to put into a certain country... the country that is cheapest for these companies attracts the investment. 
 Capitalism is not a nice way for the majority of people to live. (60% of the entire world's wealth, is owned by bet. 3% and 5% of the world. Is that fair?) 
 If this seems wrong, or you disagree with what I've said, do the research yourself. I'd be happy to back up my words with sources...write to: eroonda@hotmail.com

----------


## Pravit

My dear friend, I may hate Bush and capitalism just as much as you do, but you've made an idiot out of yourself on this forum already. This topic has nothing to do with learning the Russian language and this forum is not a place for you to spout your political beliefs or practice your limited knowledge of Russian "мат". Get yourself some paper and crayons and parade signs at the next WTO summit. I'm sure you'll make a big difference. Go away.

----------


## EffMah

I had to vote for Capitalism, because of the terrible slandering you gave it with no points about it that were good.

----------


## Jasper May

Well, I don't _like_ America, and I do think they may be abusing their power, but hey, that's wholly in their right as a superpower. If Communism had won, wouldn't the Soviet Union be imposing their rule on every country in the world? Wait a couple of centuries and the USA too will collapse, like the Roman, Spanish and British Empires before it. Maybe the world will then finally enjoy a century of blissful rule under the Empire of Somalia or Republic of Kamchatka-Liechtenstein. 
I'd love to vote for socialism, but I'm just too materialistic, I'm afraid.

----------


## Pravit

Empire of Somalia...now _that's_ an idea, Jas! Hell, you get +1 PAR for that!

----------


## emka71aln

I agree....better start studying up on my Kamchatkan.

----------


## waxwing

Take a quick look at this.. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3406941.stm 
Americans further solidifying their control of virtually the entire region around the oil and gas routes out of the Caspian.
And isn't it interesting that the only pipeline route that Russia still controls is through .. you guessed it, Chechnya! 
Not to be cynical or anything..

----------


## Mihkkal

I agree with Pravit that the way this question was put, it has little to do with Russia. But as was just pointed out above, American imperialism does have something to do with Russia... And whether one should go for more capitalism (whatever kind) or more socialism (whatever kind) is a valid question for every society - the Russian Federation being no exeption. To me it would seem that Russia has suffered the worst of both capitalism and the socialist movement. 
Note that I say "the socialist movement" and not "socialism". It stings in my chest when people say the Soviet Union was socialistic in the correct sense of the word. Socialism is when (some of, most of, all of) the economics are democratically controlled by parliament(s) and/or the workers of the productive institution(s).  
But where was the democracy in the Soviet Union?
IMHO that project was more or less just something in between capitalism and socialism: When transfered from theory into the real world, Bolshevism became Buerocratism and State-Capitalism. 
So, I voted for socialism. Because I believe a society should strive for cooperation, equality and democracy - not egocentricity, inequality and plutocracy.

----------


## the_intrepid

I would recommend, to all of those who voted for "Socialism" (and especially Doorak and Mihkkal), sitting down and reading 'The Black Book of Communism'. 
The first two chapters are a point by point illustration of how the soviets were indeed socialists, and that Marxist philosophy seems to inevitably lead toward that kind of cruel and wicked behavior. 
Marxist ideology, from the beginning, was predicated upon the idea of a struggle between classes. The struggle was not to be just a philosophical one, however, but one that would ultimately become violent, ending in a global revolution whereby the proletarians of the "working classes" would rule society and destroy all institutions of capitalism, the state, private property, etc. Even in the early days, the philosophy of Communism was deeply immersed in a philosophy of violence and destruction. 
In any case, Naziism and Fascism, while often contrasted with Communism, actually have a lot in common with it and are derived from the same sources. 
Can anybody here give any sort of staunch refutation of the statement 'Power corrupts, and absolutely power corrupts absolutely'? The leaders of socialist nations have so more more power and authority than those of capitalist nations, that you shouldn't even be considering it a worthwhile debate anymore. 
Of course if you still think socialism (and communism, especially, are good) we can look through history of socialist regimes and do a body count of all those killed, and you'll be enlightened. 
- Millions of Russians and Ukrainians (more Ukranians) starved to death to fulfill government dictated population quotas.
- Since 1950, more than 50 million Chinese civilians were killed during peacetime.
- From 1975-1979, over two million Cambodians (31% of the entire population) were destroyed by government edicts.
- Millions of Jews killed by Adolph Hitler's Fascism in Nazi Germany (Fascism of course being a form of socialism -- and arguably the most successful form at that)
- Since 1900, four civilians died [of "unnatural" causes] for every one soldier that died in combat --- the significant majority of these were under the rule of Communists (be they in China or the Soviet Union). 
Now even if you equate George W. Bush (or his father, or any modern U.S. President) with capitalism, the number of people they killed in whatever way does not even compare to the number killed by socialists. 
I'm going to start a topic here concerning Capitalism. So Doorak, instead of emailing you for your sources, why not bring some of the information over on that thread so that we may discuss it publically. 
(Oh, yeah. My vote goes for "Capitalism".)

----------


## BETEP

> This topic has nothing to do with learning the Russian language...

 Why not!? Just write in Russian.  ::    

> The first two chapters are a point by point illustration of how the soviets were indeed socialists, and that Marxist philosophy seems to inevitably lead toward that kind of cruel and wicked behavior.

 May be the Marxism is wrong but you don't know the one enough.   

> Marxist ideology, from the beginning, was predicated upon the idea of a struggle between classes.

 Marxism ideology is the single class ideology (except 'гнилая интелегенция') by the way.   

> The struggle was not to be just a philosophical one, however, but one that would ultimately become violent, ending in a global revolution whereby the proletarians of the "working classes" would rule society and destroy all institutions of capitalism, the state, private property, etc.

 The USSR didn't have the state? The socialism principle is 'you cannot exploit people to get income personally'. That means, you can work alone or you can involve some people and share the company between all workers.   

> Even in the early days, the philosophy of Communism was deeply immersed in a philosophy of violence and destruction.

 First of all, don't mix the communism and socialism. Any change (espesially in property and power) brings blood and violence. Look at any of war. Do you really think it happened because they are communists? The most violent thing is conversion of capitalism to socialism. Just imagine, you have to give back your company to community.   

> Can anybody here give any sort of staunch refutation of the statement 'Power corrupts, and absolutely power corrupts absolutely'?

 I can't. I can even reword this 'Money corrupts, and big money corrupts absolutely'.   

> The leaders of socialist nations have so more more power and authority than those of capitalist nations, that you shouldn't even be considering it a worthwhile debate anymore.

 I thing the socialism and leaders' power are really different things like capitalism and democracy are not the same.   

> Of course if you still think socialism (and communism, especially, are good) we can look through history of socialist regimes and do a body count of all those killed, and you'll be enlightened.

 Why you didn't tell us how many people were killed for their property?  ::    

> (Oh, yeah. My vote goes for "Capitalism".)

 I didn't vote at all. I know the main principles of socialism but I don't think it's good for real life.

----------


## Scorpio

> My dear friend, I may hate Bush and capitalism just as much as you do, but you've made an idiot out of yourself on this forum already. This topic has nothing to do with learning the Russian language and this forum is not a place for you to spout your political beliefs or practice your limited knowledge of Russian "мат". Get yourself some paper and crayons and parade signs at the next WTO summit. I'm sure you'll make a big difference. Go away.

 Disagree. This IS a political section of forum, isn't it?

----------


## MasterAdmin

The topic is OK and can lead to constructive conversation. I think it was inspired by long period of communism in Russia.

----------


## the_intrepid

> Originally Posted by the_intrepid  The first two chapters are a point by point illustration of how the soviets were indeed socialists, and that Marxist philosophy seems to inevitably lead toward that kind of cruel and wicked behavior.   May be the Marxism is wrong but you don't know the one enough.

 What don't I know enough?   

> Originally Posted by the_intrepid  Marxist ideology, from the beginning, was predicated upon the idea of a struggle between classes.   Marxism ideology is the single class ideology (except 'гнилая интелегенция') by the way.

 You're quite right with that statement, but I don't think you understand why. 
This single class isn't done by economic "equalizing", mind you, but rather by bullets, famine, and torture. Basically, if you try to be better than anyone, they shoot you or imprison you for being too bourgeois. Of course a society of equals is completely impossible. I mean seriously, the same man isn't equal to himself on any given day.   

> Originally Posted by the_intrepid  The struggle was not to be just a philosophical one, however, but one that would ultimately become violent, ending in a global revolution whereby the proletarians of the "working classes" would rule society and destroy all institutions of capitalism, the state, private property, etc.   The USSR didn't have the state? The socialism principle is 'you cannot exploit people to get income personally'. That means, you can work alone or you can involve some people and share the company between all workers.

 The USSR did have 'the state', but Marx wanted the state to be abolished once the proper systems were in place -- of course this would never happen, and not just because the country would go bankrupt before such institutions were in place. How many of us would be able to give up that much power and control?   

> Originally Posted by the_intrepid  Even in the early days, the philosophy of Communism was deeply immersed in a philosophy of violence and destruction.   First of all, don't mix the communism and socialism. Any change (espesially in property and power) brings blood and violence. Look at any of war. Do you really think it happened because they are communists? The most violent thing is conversion of capitalism to socialism. Just imagine, you have to give back your company to community.

 Communism is a form of socialism, and not the most successful form either... well unless you are measuring success in terms of the number of people killed for no good reason at all. Most wars throughout history can be traced back to the old proverb, "If goods cannot cross borders, armies will." When trade between peoples is free (even across borders), there is no incentive for war with the exception of defense, and wars solely for the purpose of defense have been quite rare.   

> Originally Posted by the_intrepid  Can anybody here give any sort of staunch refutation of the statement 'Power corrupts, and absolutely power corrupts absolutely'?   I can't. I can even reword this 'Money corrupts, and big money corrupts absolutely'.

 Again I say that in a capitalist society, bad monopolies don't form. When 'big money' corrupts, it is not a sign of the failure of capitalism, but rather of modern democracy. Democracy allows for people to be bought off. Don't make the lazy mistake of blaming this on capitalism.   

> Originally Posted by the_intrepid  Of course if you still think socialism (and communism, especially, are good) we can look through history of socialist regimes and do a body count of all those killed, and you'll be enlightened.   Why you didn't tell us how many people were killed for their property?

 In a socialist society or in a capitalist society? In a capitalist society? Very few. The incentives just aren't worth the risks. In a socialist society? Millions.   

> Originally Posted by the_intrepid  (Oh, yeah. My vote goes for "Capitalism".)   I didn't vote at all. I know the main principles of socialism but I don't think it's good for real life.

 At least we can agree that socialism cannot work. Capitalist societies (libertarian societies) have worked. Read "For a New Liberty" by Murray N. Rothbard for insights into the stable, peaceful, and prosperous history of Ancient [libertarian] Ireland. 
(One can also study the fishing villages of Midieval Iceland as well.)

----------


## BETEP

> You're quite right with that statement, but I don't think you understand why.

 I know. It's your turn now.  ::  
Let me explain why. It's because every person of socialist society always is self-employer (may be except ombudsmen).   

> This single class isn't done by economic "equalizing", mind you, but rather by bullets, famine, and torture. Basically, if you try to be better than anyone, they shoot you or imprison you for being too bourgeois.

 Are we talking about economic relations or revolutions? What are you going to tell about bourgeois revolutions?   

> Of course a society of equals is completely impossible. I mean seriously, the same man isn't equal to himself on any given day.

 You are living in society of equal political rights, isn't it? Actually it is a political socialism where you have a part (vote) of the company USA.   

> How many of us would be able to give up that much power and control?

 May be you wanted to ask: 'How many of US would be able to give up that much power and control?'  :: 
You know, people of EU are really crazy.  ::    

> Communism is a form of socialism, and not the most successful form either...

 Following you logic I could say: 'Communism is a form of capitalism'.  :: 
BTW, socialism also has some forms. The keywords are "surplus value" and "share".   

> When 'big money' corrupts, it is not a sign of the failure of capitalism, but rather of modern democracy.

 Why did you mention the democracy? It's not a part of capitalism.
I could say: "When 'big power' corrupts, it is not a sign of the failure of socialism, but rather of modern democracy."   

> In a socialist society or in a capitalist society? In a capitalist society? Very few. The incentives just aren't worth the risks. In a socialist society? Millions.

 Wow!!! You really know nothing.
Are you talking about USSR "socialism" or theoretical socialism? What property you meant? Gold ring (one piece), old radio receiver (one piece), twenty five roubles or something else...
You could take some statistics and compare rate of crime in socialist Russia and capitalist Russia.   

> At least we can agree that socialism cannot work.

 It cannot work right here right now. Moreover, many of people don't want to change the world and I agree with them.

----------


## the_intrepid

> I know. It's your turn now.

 Thanks for the warning.   

> Let me explain why. It's because every person of socialist society always is self-employer (may be except ombudsmen).

 Everybody in the world cannot be self-employed. Why not? Because the capital and other resources are simply not there for it. Why? Because capital must go to where it is most efficient, and one person trying to do several things isn't efficient, nor is it productive. Combine that with the fact that not everyone has the will, time, ability, or inclination to be self-employed, and you have yourself an empty argument. :-p   

> Are we talking about economic relations or revolutions? What are you going to tell about bourgeois revolutions?

 It depends on what bourgeois revolutions you would like to learn about? 
French Revolution?
The "revolutionary bourgeoisie" is a myth. George Comninel's book on the French Revolution makes clear that the primary actors against the crown were elements of the court itself, not the bourgeoisie. 
American Revolution?
American revolution can only be called a social revolution in an extremely qualified sense. Staughton Lynd's study of class dynamics of New York state in the American revolution make a convincing case that the colonial bourgeois were against social transformation. 
English Revolution?
Marx never really viewed it as a model for the classic bourgeois-democratic revolution. The grip of the old regime was never really broken. You can see this in the House of Lords, the Crown, and so on. Even Marx understood this. 
Neither Marxist doctrine, nor the doctrine of Engels, can hold up well anymore.
The "revolutionary bourgeoisie" is a myth.   

> You are living in society of equal political rights, isn't it? Actually it is a political socialism where you have a part (vote) of the company USA.

 No, I don't live in a society of equal political rights. Politics in the United States has become corrupt -- just like everywhere else. I've explained elsewhere how we have been [unfortunately and illegally] altered to become a Mixed-Market (and increasingly socialist) Democracy from a Limited Republic. I'm not going to type all ]that out again.   

> May be you wanted to ask: 'How many of US would be able to give up that much power and control?'

 Not many, if any, at all. That's what I'm saying. I'm not saying that politicians in the United States are immune to the addictiveness of power.   

> You know, people of EU are really crazy.

 I only thinkg the members of the European Union who buy into the European Union are crazy. Layered bureacracy is making a come back in the form of regionalism within the European Union. 
You know there is a growing trend to call the European Union the "EUSSR". Of course it stands for the European Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. It's tongue in cheek, but certainly insightful. The European Union is much less violent and more mild compared to the Soviet Union, but it is headed in the same direction. It will fail for the same reasons that the USSR failed.   

> Following you logic I could say: 'Communism is a form of capitalism'. 
> BTW, socialism also has some forms. The keywords are "surplus value" and "share".

 Communism is a form of Socialism. Stop being a dolt. 
All that Marxist "surplus value" nonsense is exactly that, nonsense. It removes incentives for innovation and entrepreneurship: both of which are necessities to a healthy economy.   

> Why did you mention the democracy? It's not a part of capitalism.
> I could say: "When 'big power' corrupts, it is not a sign of the failure of socialism, but rather of modern democracy."

 True democracy and capitalism go hand in hand. However, modern "Democracy" is about Mixed-Markets and they naturally begin to slide towards socialism and oligarchy. You might want to look up "Market Socialism". 
Are you even reading my other posts around the 'Politics' section?   

> Wow!!! You really know nothing.

 Don't confuse your inability to think clearly and use logic with my lack of knowledge.   

> Are you talking about USSR "socialism" or theoretical socialism? What property you meant? Gold ring (one piece), old radio receiver (one piece), twenty five roubles or something else...

 I have no idea what you're trying to say with the 'Gold ring' and 'old radio receive' nonsense.  
The USSR Socialism, Chinese Socialism, North Korean Socialism, and Marxist socialism all fail for the same reasons. Too much capitali and other resources are wasted in subsidizing various parts of society and the system eventually either collapses under its own weight, or it starts to slide towards capitalism (hopefully more slowly, like China.).   

> You could take some statistics and compare rate of crime in socialist Russia and capitalist Russia.

 There is no such thing as capitalist Russia. There is too much corruption left over and too many old communists and other socialists running the show behind the scenes. 
Also, I presume since you're such an ignorant and adamant socialist, you're not going to count crimes committed by the Socialist government in the USSR in your statistics given. You know, the MILLIONS of people MURDERED and IMPRISONED for no reason at all except that they weren't productive enough, or they weren't good enough at being good little Soviet machines.   

> It cannot work right here right now. Moreover, many of people don't want to change the world and I agree with them.

 Again, socialism in all its forms fails for the same reason; the inefficiency of central planning. I can recommend some books on economics to you, if you'd like.

----------


## BETEP

> Everybody in the world cannot be self-employed. Why not? Because the capital and other resources are simply not there for it.

 Right! That means the capital have to move with people. You cannot live on your investment. The circumstances where you all the time have to be a part of a business to get income is forcing to improve quality and efficiency, or to find other place to apply yourself.   

> Combine that with the fact that not everyone has the will, time, ability, or inclination to be self-employed…

 You are absolutely right here. That's because the socialism never had this form before. Another problem is a path form capital relationships but still.   

> It depends on what bourgeois revolutions you would like to learn about?

 I don't want to learn about any of them. I just hinted to you about you can not mix a transitional process like revolution and permanent process. You can live in the air, and you can swim in the water, but you will be died after a falling from bridge.   

> No, I don't live in a society of equal political rights. Politics in the United States has become corrupt -- just like everywhere else.

 That's yours problem. You have a vote and nobody took away it from you.   

> I only thinkg the members of the European Union who buy into the European Union are crazy.

 You see; I knew it!  ::    

> Communism is a form of Socialism. Stop being a dolt.

 Communism is a form of Capitalism. Stop being a dolt.  ::    

> All that Marxist "surplus value" nonsense is exactly that, nonsense.

 This is only an economical term. You could cook up yourself.  ::    

> It removes incentives for innovation and entrepreneurship: both of which are necessities to a healthy economy.

 The situation where you don't have capital goods makes the same but for other people.   

> True democracy and capitalism go hand in hand.

 True socialism and true democracy go hand in hand and step by step. Hm... I will be president one day!  ::    

> Are you even reading my other posts around the 'Politics' section?

 Thank god, no.  ::    

> I have no idea what you're trying to say with the 'Gold ring' and 'old radio receive' nonsense.

 That's why I sad, ' Wow!!! You really know nothing.'  ::    

> The USSR Socialism, Chinese Socialism, North Korean Socialism, and Marxist socialism all fail for the same reasons.

 Chinese socialism, North-Korean socialism, Cuban socialism are only a copy of the USSR system. The USSR economical system was closed to feudal system (партократия). The Marxist socialism is only theory and we have no practise in it.   

> There is no such thing as capitalist Russia. There is too much corruption left over and too many old communists and other socialists running the show behind the scenes.

 Do you think Russia never existed before perestroyka?   

> Also, I presume since you're such an ignorant and adamant socialist, you're not going to count crimes committed by the Socialist government in the USSR in your statistics given. You know, the MILLIONS of people MURDERED and IMPRISONED for no reason at all except that they weren't productive enough, or they weren't good enough at being good little Soviet machines.

 I presume since you're such an ignorant and adamant capitalist, you did call the government of the USSR by socialists.  ::    

> Again, socialism in all its forms fails for the same reason; the inefficiency of central planning.

 Wow!!! Did you use my keywords to find it?  ::  
Central planning is another form for the sharing 'surplus value'. It's definitely died system.   

> Again, socialism in all its forms fails for the same reason; the inefficiency of central planning. I can recommend some books on economics to you, if you'd like.

 I can do the same. The first one is "The Capital".  ::

----------


## the_intrepid

> I don't want to learn about any of them. I just hinted to you about you can not mix a transitional process like revolution and permanent process.

 Socialists (communists, fascists, and so on) have all been violent murderers during their revolutions and then after the revolution during their reign.   

> You can live in the air, and you can swim in the water, but you will be died after a falling from bridge.

 I think that depends on how great the distance from the bridge to the surface (of land or the water) is.   

> That's yours problem. You have a vote and nobody took away it from you.

 You face the same problem, but the issues of whether or not you accept it and understand what the base of the problem is, are another story. 
I'll be voting "None of the Above" in the 2004 United States Presidential Elections.   

> Communism is a form of Capitalism. Stop being a dolt.

 Are you sure you're not being the dolt? You're being so asanine.   

> This is only an economical term. You could cook up yourself.

 I'm familiar with the term as I've encountered it many places, and indeed explained the fallacy behind it too. You really should read my other posts, or perhaps accept a list of books that I can recommend to you. 
(Don't Russians appreciate people who value books?)   

> True socialism and true democracy go hand in hand and step by step. Hm... I will be president one day!

 True democracy is a rule of the people, by the people. This is all but impossible beyond the individual since 51% of the people in a democracy can dictate what the other 49% can do. (Though technically, in the U.S., you require 2/3rds and 3/4ths of the votes in the House of Representatives and the Senate to have something passed. This is called the "Tyranny of the majority". The founding fathers of the United States understood this-- and this is why they did not support democracy, but rather a representative democracy in the form of a Limited Republic. 
Socialism is the rule of a collective over the individual. That's not democracy. Even Marx understood this, why can't you? 
You continue failing to realize that the hold world would not voluntarily accept a socialist regime. Actually, now that I think about it, Marx knew that they wouldn't -- which is why he, and especially his most adamant supporters, supported bloody and violent revolutions. "Sweeping" away the bourgeois, and all that.   

> Thank god, no.

 It's a shame that you're not. You might learn something.   

> That's why I sad, ' Wow!!! You really know nothing.'

 It's not a matter of not being able to understand your piss-poor logic. It's just hard to understand your english some times (I'm not making fun of you or insulting you. I'm just asking you to rephrase it.)   

> Chinese socialism, North-Korean socialism, Cuban socialism are only a copy of the USSR system. The USSR economical system was closed to feudal system (партократия). The Marxist socialism is only theory and we have no practise in it.

 Exactly, Marxist system is utopian on paper, but it cannot work in reality. Marx, himself, wasn't even really a Marxist in the end. 
Socialism, in it's original form and every variation thereafter, was the result of 'intellectuals' rebelling against feudalism. Many socialists believe that socialism was an answer against the exploitation of capitalists during the Industrial revolution, but this is simply not true. Socialists just wanted to switch roles with those who lead during feudal times.   

> Do you think Russia never existed before perestroyka?

 Certainly Russia existed before perestroika. It has for quite some time, at least since after the Mongols left. Unfortunately it spent so much time staying away from the West and Western ideas, that it missed out on all the great movements the most recent centuries of Western Civilization (the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, and so on).   

> I presume since you're such an ignorant and adamant capitalist, you did call the government of the USSR by socialists.

 How exactly am I ignorant for understanding and accepting why the USSR was, in FACT, socialist?   

> Wow!!! Did you use my keywords to find it?

 You've offered nothing useful.   

> Central planning is another form for the sharing 'surplus value'. It's definitely died system.

 How can someone who admits that central planning is dead, continue to support socialism? Maybe ignorance about what socialism is, and indeed what Marxism is? Do you even know of Marx's stages towards socialism, and where socialism and communism fit in? The USSR is an illustration of how that process fails.   

> I can do the same. The first one is "The Capital".

 I've read 'The Capital', and other works of Marx. I also read some of Engels's work. I wasn't impressed by other. My finding little valuye in them is due to my already having a good understanding of market economics, and good understanding of world history as well. 
Would you like for me to recommend some books to you now? Maybe you can try to counter Hayek, Friedman, von Mises, Adam Smith, and so on with your "Communism is capitalism" rhetoric?

----------


## BETEP

> Socialists (communists, fascists, and so on) have all been violent murderers during their revolutions and then after the revolution during their reign.

 Revolutionists have all been violent murderers during their revolutions and then after the revolution during their reign. That's mostly right. BTW, the national socialism has nothing with our subject.   

> I think that depends on how great the distance from the bridge to the surface (of land or the water) is.

 Judging by amount of victims it was too high. There are no revolts in other circumstances.   

> I'll be voting "None of the Above" in the 2004 United States Presidential Elections.

 So what!? Do you want the Purple Heart for this?   

> I'm familiar with the term as I've encountered it many places, and indeed explained the fallacy behind it too. You really should read my other posts, or perhaps accept a list of books that I can recommend to you.

 I have a lot of doubts.   

> Don't Russians appreciate people who value books?

 I don't want to respond instead other people. Ask them.
I appreciate the people who use their mind while reading books.   

> True democracy is a rule of the people, by the people.
> Socialism is the rule of a collective over the individual.

 Here is your problem! You can distinguish the public relationship and the economy relationship in capitalist society but it's impossible for you to do the same in socialism society.
You cannot compare the socialism and democracy like you cannot compare the capitalism and democracy because they are different in substance.
You are right when you talk about 'true democracy' but your definition of socialism is right for the same democracy too. May be you don't like the word collective but the 51 percents of votes is a collective. Think about that. 
Let's back to the socialism.
Socialism as political approach is the politics of high priority of social programmes.
Socialism as economy approach is the economy rules which tend to the even distribution of income. 
The Marx theory is the capitalist steals the workers money because he owns the capital goods. Actually, that's all he told. There are many ways to share the income and the way of the state property is not good.   

> It's a shame that you're not. You might learn something.

 From you!?   

> It's not a matter of not being able to understand your piss-poor logic.

 You don't need a logic because you have a right book.  ::    

> It's just hard to understand your english some times.

 That's the single thing I regret because I don't speak English since my childhood and I'm still learning. Anyway, you will not understand those things until I'll explained them for you.   

> I'm not making fun of you...

 Calm down. I do. I even mark the places where you should laugh.  ::    

> Socialism, in it's original form and every variation thereafter, was the result of 'intellectuals' rebelling against feudalism. Many socialists believe that socialism was an answer against the exploitation of capitalists during the Industrial revolution, but this is simply not true. Socialists just wanted to switch roles with those who lead during feudal times.

 That's interesting subject for another thread.   

> Unfortunately it spent so much time staying away from the West and Western ideas, that it missed out on all the great movements the most recent centuries of Western Civilization (the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, and so on).

 Who knows what could happen. I have no answer for this.   

> How exactly am I ignorant for understanding and accepting why the USSR was, in FACT, socialist?

 Mark a birch as an oak and somebody do trust in it.  :: 
The main attribute of socialism as economic system is the capital goods are the property of people who is involved in production process. The capital goods in the USSR were the property of the state and people can't control them.   

> How can someone who admits that central planning is dead, continue to support socialism?

 First of all, I don't support socialism but I know what it is. I can bet you read only someone's book about 'The Capital'. The term 'central planning' turns up only in the state property concept. The global planning is working now, for example, in oil industry (OPEC) and it's have no relations with any of socialism concepts.   

> Do you even know of Marx's stages towards socialism, and where socialism and communism fit in? The USSR is an illustration of how that process fails.

 Communism is another idea of the sharing. Actually, the 'sharing' is wrong word here because the communism is an idea of global property.
I guess you're talking about the socialism evolution to the communism. It could only happen after another revolution because it's a change of owners (collective property has to become global property).
By the way, where did you see the collective property in the USSR?   

> Would you like for me to recommend some books to you now?

 You should finish 'The Capital' first. Sorry, I didn't hear about 'Socialism for Dummies'.  ::

----------


## the_intrepid

> So what!? Do you want the Purple Heart for this?

 I was never in the military, let alone in combat. I suppose I felt a bit too proud of not falling into the lie that the only time you're voting in a society is if you check the box next to a candidate's name.   

> Here is your problem! You can distinguish the public relationship and the economy relationship in capitalist society but it's impossible for you to do the same in socialism society.

 Because in a capitalist society, the relationship been the state and private enterprise is nonexistent. Anywhere that a relationship exists, you have socialism (to one degree or another).   

> You cannot compare the socialism and democracy like you cannot compare the capitalism and democracy because they are different in substance.

 What do you think is the relationship between socialism, capitalism, and democracy, then? How can democracy exist with a socialist economy, mixed-economy, or capitalist economy? Is democracy a legitimate form of government in any of those cases?

----------


## the_intrepid

I'm really angry now. You don't even have to bother responding to that post. It took me a good hour to come up with what turned out to be a very good post and when I went to 'submit' it, it only printed half of it. Heck, it only printed about 1/6th of it. I suppose I was over the limit of characters. I'm not going to bother writing it all over again. Do not be offended. 
(How about a warning on this forum, instead of just deleting the post at a random cut off point if you go over the limit? Or is there just a bug on this forum that deletes half of all my posts, and no one else's?) 
It's been fun, though. I'm done arguing on this forum. If you'd like to talk to me sometime privately to discuss anything, please feel free. Contact information is in my profile. 
If not, read some Hazlitt, Friedman, Rothbard, or something. http://www.acton.org/research/reading/free-market.html
That's a fairly decent list. 
I haven't read works from all those authors, mind you, but I'm working on it. Give me another few years. 
Some sites I regularly read articles from: http://laissez-fairerepublic.com http://www.cato.org http://www.lewrockwell.com http://www.mises.org 
I hope you take the time to read some of the writings there, they are exponentially better versed in politics, history, and economics than I. Considering the limited amount of time I have to put into the debate, I would probably end up doing more harm than good in arguing for 'my side'. 
With all that aside, and with the goal of coming to this website reached, I'm done.

----------


## Aristodorus

I don't think that capitalism is the reason that USA (and Jews) idiots rule the world. Soviet union had too the same power USA have now with communism. It's just bad luck that these b****** became a super power. We have just to wait this will end in some years.

----------


## Tambakis

I definitely feel the love.

----------


## the_intrepid

> I don't think that capitalism is the reason that USA (and Jews) idiots rule the world. Soviet union had too the same power USA have now with communism. It's just bad luck that these b****** became a super power. We have just to wait this will end in some years.

 Yes, the Jews are secretly ruling the world. Heh. 
The U.S. became the sole super power because of a much stronger economy than the Soviet Union's. How? Because the USA had a more capitalistic economy, but it is by far a capitalist society. There's way too much government intervention in economics affairs.
Capitalistic wisdom suggests that the Soviet Union's collapse was inevitable (free market economists were predicting it's collapse and warned of acting aggressively toward the Soviet Union). It is now widely felt and accepted (all over the world) that the economic collapse of the Soviet Union was sped up dramatically by the Space Race and the less documented "Military-Technology Race". 
I agree with you that is a shame that America is the sole super power, but you shouldn't hate America because it is a super power. You should just not like the American government for becoming so militaristic. Not all of America likes the idea of bullying the world. I would say the significant majority of American's would rather just "live and let live". Like all Empires, America will fall to the ground. 
I just have to ask two questions, where does your hatred of America come from? I also have a question as to why Americans are the bitches? What's Greece these days? Nothing.

----------


## Aristodorus

> Yes, the Jews are secretly ruling the world. Heh.

 I'm glad that you agree  :P I thought that most Americans don't know so much.    

> What's Greece these days? Nothing.

 What is America this days??? Only an uncivilized military power nothing more...

----------


## the_intrepid

Aristodorus, I greatly dislike the way Israel's government has been behaving for a long time, but I'm not about to condemn all Jewish people because of it. 
I'm also aware of the several billions of dollars that the United States government gives to Israel each year that is not taxed. I think it's either 5 billion dollars cash or 10 billion dollars cash. This is used for the Israeli military. 
I'm also aware of the U.S.S. Liberty, and how it was attacked by Israeli aircraft. Israel has never bothered to apologize for this. 
There's alot bad that can be said about Israel, but the Jews are not running the world. Unfortunately, however, Israel seems to be way too influential on American political and military policy these days. America is slowly waking up to this. It won't be thusly forever. 
[Until you can actually prove that the Jews are secretly ruling the planet, you'll be taken as an ignorant and jealous fool. I do not say these words to attack you, I say them to tell you how you'll be taken.] 
What is America these days? America is the New Rome. I wouldn't doubt that they teach that Greece is still the cradle of Western Civilization in Greece, and I agree with it.
However, Greece hasn't done anything in a very long time. Is Greece more civilized than America? Hardly! Quite the opposite, I'd say. 
In what ways do you think Americans are uncivilized? Are you going to spout off about how we are all capitalist pigs (not true... and I'm sure you don't even know how to distinguish between a capitalist and a market socialist...)? Are you going to give us some blather about how Americans are uneducated and unintellectual? More people attend Colleges and Universities in America than anywhere else in the world. In fact, there are thousands and thousands of international students that come to America to get their education because of the quality of American colleges and universities. Let's compare Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, U.C. at Berkley, Carnegie Melon, and M.I.T. to the best that Greece has to offer... 
No, I know what it is! Americans love guns! That's what it must be. We all are crazy about guns and personal defense, and go aground killing each other -- or at the very least, robbing each other. Is that it? I should hope that's not your argument. I'd laugh at you for being a fool if you claimed that. 
Maybe all of America can be categorized by an uncivilized military power that goes around bullying other people. Did Greece act any different? Did Rome? Did the Mongols? Did the Britons? The French? The Spanish? The Portuguese? The Russians? The Soviets? Maybe you thihk China is civilized? 
I'll be one of the first to admit that America has her faults, and quite a number of them. But America is still a beacon of hope to a large portion of the world. It has the most stable economy (despite the "power" of the Euro, the U.S. Dollar is still the most trusted currency in the world). I think, instead of talking about America like your an expert, you should turn off whatever American channels they show over in Greece (they have television in Greece, right?). While you're not watching whatever putrid American television they show abroad, or complaining about McDonald's, or moaning about the disgustingly poor quality of "American Music" (yeah... uh... because there's only one kind of American Music... riiiight!), and I don't know, maybe visit America and see how real Americans live, work, study, write, create, develop, whatever! 
[To be fair, I actually have great respect for Greece. Despite domination by the Turks throughout her history, Greece still maintains a relatively stable culture. Now, modern Greece is far removed from Classical Greece, but I think there's still a bit of that intellectual spark still there. We'll just see if you can get your act together again some day. When you do, then by all means, put down America again. Until then, don't.]

----------


## Aristodorus

At first, sorry for my syntax errors etc. I'm not English.  
About the Jews:
Jews dream was always to rule the world. That ιs shown mainly of the texts of their religion (Judaism) and a little the other religions they created (Christianity,Islam). They think that they are the ''superior human race'' between others.  
The people of Israel are innocent but the fanatic Jews (Zionists) do all the job.  
Unfortunately they now rule America (the superpower now). And they are trying to rule the world now with the power of America. They are the one who did America as it is now.
Bush is an idiot farmer from Texas and the only think he wants is to have some alcohol to drink. He is always doing what the others tell him (Jews). Dick Chany maybe is a Jew. 
Well, maybe I am so anti-Jew because I am a Greek too and we are one of their worst enemies. All their ''holy'' books contain very much hate against us. They did a lot of genocides to us using others. 
When America's power is over the Jews end too and they know that thats why they tried to unite the world under one leader. (I can't find the right world for that in English now). 
As for proofs I have a lot of very strong proofs but they re in Greek so if you have a very good quality translator I can send them to you    ::  .  
As for Americans I am not talking with without knownledje, because I know many Americans in real life, and I have very close relatives who lived in America from tens of years and worked for NATO. So that I think that American citizens are just innocent people but many of them unfortunately believe all the thinks and propagandas that the goverment tell them. Well many of them know how thinks are I hope you are one from them. 
With the world ''uncivilized'' I meant that America has no culture. Their culture is Coca-Cola and MacDonalds and their national hero Bufallo Bill! 
You asked me if they have television in Greece? That's one more of American propaganda. Many Americans think that they re the only in the world who are technologocally developed and most other countries are 3rd world. That's a joke. Most European countries (including Greece) have all technological thinks you have in America that you have in America.

----------


## the_intrepid

> As for proofs I have a lot of very strong proofs but they re in Greek so if you have a very good quality translator I can send them to you    .

 A friend of mine speaks Greek, so if you would send them, I would appreciate it.   

> With the world ''uncivilized'' I meant that America has no culture. Their culture is Coca-Cola and MacDonalds and their national hero Bufallo Bill!

 Buffalo Bill is our national hero? Wow. I didn't even know we had a national hero. It's quite funny that you said Buffalo Bill. The last time I heard someone mention that name, I was about 6 or 7 years old, and it was from a book in my Elementary Schoo library. It's very hard to find two Americans that agree on people who are heroic, let alone the entire nation to agree on a hero. 
How is America's culture Coca-Cola or McDonalds? I know many people that do not frequent either one of those establishments. What kind of culture is it of Coca-Cola or McDonalds, anyways? 
Another question, if Coca-Cola and McDonalds are so bad, why are so many Europeans and Eastern Europeans supporting these establishments by buying food there? Are you going to make the foolish notion that Coca-Cola and McDonalds are pushing themselves on Europeans? Are you going to take that further by saying America is pushing Coca-Cola and McDonalds on Europe to implement American culture in Europe? That's farcical at best. 
You know, I don't drink Coca-Cola or McDonalds, but definitely consider myself culturally America. I share the same values that this nation was founded under. I try to live up to those values and promote them. Coca-Cola and McDonalds have not been around for a third of America's history, probably not even a fourth. 
[quote[
You asked me if they have television in Greece? That's one more of American propaganda. Many Americans think that they re the only in the world who are technologocally developed and most other countries are 3rd world. That's a joke. Most European countries (including Greece) have all technological thinks you have in America that you have in America.[/quote] 
When I asked if there were televisions in Greece, I was demonstrating the same narrow-mindedness that you used to profile America and Americans. Some Americans might think that there are kangaroos everywhere in Australia, including in the middle of cities. You might not be able to find too many Americans that can accurately locate more than one or two less significant European countries. 
Of course I'm aware of Europe having technology that America has (although most of the people of most of the countries cannot afford nearly as much.)  
Are you starting to see how this works? When you insult America and try to belittle Americans as culture-less (a common misconception by the "refined" Europeans), Americans will quip back with intentional miscalculations of there own. As you have demonstrated, it drives Europeans up the wall. I mean it irks them to no end.

----------


## Alex_Ivanov

> Certainly Russia existed before perestroika. It has for quite some time, at least since after the Mongols left. Unfortunately it spent so much time staying away from the West and Western ideas, that it missed out on all the great movements the most recent centuries of Western Civilization (the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, and so on).

 1. Russian state actually existed long before Mongols came.   ::  
2. Are Western ideas obligatory to follow for everyone? There're other civilizations in this world, btw.
3.Why did we need Renaissance, if our Dark Ages weren't in fact dark, unlike Western ones? We also had no Reformation, because we have never had that barbarian Catholicism Westerners did have - with Inquisition and scientists burned alive. See point #2. Different civilizations have different ways.

----------


## the_intrepid

> 1. Russian state actually existed long before Mongols came.   
> 2. Are Western ideas obligatory to follow for everyone? There're other civilizations in this world, btw.
> 3.Why did we need Renaissance, if our Dark Ages weren't in fact dark, unlike Western ones? We also had no Reformation, because we have never had that barbarian Catholicism Westerners did have - with Inquisition and scientists burned alive. See point #2. Different civilizations have different ways.

 1. I'm not sure if I would call what existed before then a "Russian State", but I'm not saying there was no Russia before the Mongols. I suppose I was stating a difference between the Kievan Rus - Russia and Muscovy Russia. 
2. I never said Western ideas are obligatory to follow. I don't believe I ever made that claim... However, I do consider Western society better (if not superior) in a number of ways. For instance, the higher regard for the Individual... 
3. The specific ideas that Russia missed out on largely came from the Enlightenment period... which came on the curtails of the Renaissance. Russia also missed out on a whole lot of technological advancement too. 
Anyone who knows me, knows I'm not the biggest fan of Catholicism. However, like all regions, it has its good points and its bad. [You know, the Catholic Church still has an "Inquisition"? I found that out quite recently. I found it interesting.] 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't there several millions of people killed by Russian [Soviet] governments in modern times? 
Russia might not have had the protestant Reformation, but didn't the Soviets ban Orthodox Christianity?

----------


## Alex_Ivanov

> 1. I'm not sure if I would call what existed before then a "Russian State", but I'm not saying there was no Russia before the Mongols. I suppose I was stating a difference between the Kievan Rus - Russia and Muscovy Russia.
> 			
> 		  Kievan Rus, Moscovy, then Russian Empire, Soviet Union and Russian Federation - all were just different forms of Russian state that is in existence since 862. 
> [quote:3oyzdrnu]
> However, I do consider Western society better (if not superior) in a number of ways. For instance, the higher regard for the Individual...

 Can I consider it worse in such case? Do I have such right? Individual vs Collective is just like Euclid's and Lobachevskiy's axioms about parallel lines. No one is better, just different.   

> 3. The specific ideas that Russia missed out on largely came from the Enlightenment period... which came on the curtails of the Renaissance. Russia also missed out on a whole lot of technological advancement too.

 If you mean idea of individual over collective", for example, look at #2. Missed? It isn't obligatory, as you say.   

> Russia might not have had the protestant Reformation, but didn't the Soviets ban Orthodox Christianity?

 I mean Reformation is just another Western movement without equivalent in Russian history. Communists didn't ban christianity in fact, though it can sound strange, but it's so. They tried to give new "faith" to people and did it by force, but officially Orthodoxy have never been banned.    

> Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't there several millions of people killed by Russian [Soviet] governments in modern times?

 [/quote:3oyzdrnu] 
I'll answer to this later, I have no time right now

----------


## 44 Canon

> I don't think that capitalism is the reason that USA (and Jews) idiots rule the world. Soviet union had too the same power USA have now with communism. It's just bad luck that these b****** became a super power. We have just to wait this will end in some years.

  Reminds me of Nakita Kruschevs infamous line that the Communists would concur the US without firing a single shot.   

> Buffalo Bill is our national hero? Wow. I didn't even know we had a national hero. It's quite funny that you said Buffalo Bill. The last time I heard someone mention that name, I was about 6 or 7 years old, and it was from a book in my Elementary School library. It's very hard to find two Americans that agree on people who are heroic, let alone the entire nation to agree on a hero.

  LOL. He's a great great uncle of mine ( my mother shares his last name ) and I only know anything about him because of it.
 Had it not been for that, he'd just be some guy who once existed and got famous doing something. 
 This country is to big to have a single national hero. I think Buffalo Bills biggest activity towards American heroism is that he brought the white men and Natives together.
 Symbolically, it would be that during one of his theatrical performances, Queen Elizabeth of England saluted the American flag which was the first time British royalty ever did that.   

> How is America's culture Coca-Cola or McDonalds?

 Pepsi was the big thing last I checked.   

> I share the same values that this nation was founded under. I try to live up to those values and promote them.

  That's because they work as long as the people uphold them.    

> That's one more of American propaganda. Many Americans think that they re the only in the world who are technologically developed and most other countries are 3rd world. That's a joke.

 Many, but probably not most.
 All I keep hearing from others is how much more advanced other countries supposedly are. Of course, this mostly comes from radicals and communists.
 IMHO, it's kinda hard for Americans to think that by the mass when every other person you run in to has a computer email buddy in Pakistan, Greece, Thailand etc.   

> Some Americans might think that there are kangaroos everywhere in Australia, including in the middle of cities.

 I think most Americans know better then that, but I agree with you that Australia is a very misunderstood country in the US, and IMHO, that's probably why their so liked.   

> 2. Are Western ideas obligatory to follow for everyone? There're other civilizations in this world, btw.

  You guys can blow eachother off the planet for all I care.
 How you guys choose to live your lives is your decision and right. Just don't be griping at the US at how much your lives suck in comparison.   

> Can I consider it worse in such case? Do I have such right? Individual vs Collective is just like Euclid's and Lobachevskiy's axioms about parallel lines. No one is better, just different.

  Obviously, everyone is created equal. The Communist ideal of equal success forced down by a higher government authority generates minimal regard for human life and almost guarantees oppression and possibly tyranny.
 Communism is rigged to benefit a minority of society at the expense of the majority. I must ask you Alex which side of that field do you see yourself on. The one who will suffer at the expense of a communist regime or one who seeks to benefit at the expense of others?   

> I mean Reformation is just another Western movement without equivalent in Russian history. Communists didn't ban Christianity in fact, though it can sound strange, but it's so. They tried to give new "faith" to people and did it by force, but officially Orthodoxy have never been banned.

  Maybe I am missing something but from what I've been able to find, the Soviets never attacked Christianity until Kruschevs reign, and even then only attacked certain elements, not Christianity as a whole.
 I've even seen instances where you could say that they tried to USE Christianity, hence why we have such a thing as the separation of Church and state here in the US.

----------


## Alex_Ivanov

> You guys can blow eachother off the planet for all I care.
>  How you guys choose to live your lives is your decision and right. Just don't be griping at the US at how much your lives suck in comparison.
> 			
> 		  We have different understanding of what "life that sucks" is. Surprisingly, not everybody dreams about moving to US. 
> [quote:2vsc1b68]
>  Obviously, everyone is created equal. The Communist ideal of equal success forced down by a higher government authority generates minimal regard for human life and almost guarantees oppression and possibly tyranny.
>  Communism is rigged to benefit a minority of society at the expense of the majority. I must ask you Alex which side of that field do you see yourself on. The one who will suffer at the expense of a communist regime or one who seeks to benefit at the expense of others?

 [/quote:2vsc1b68] 
Communism has nothing to do with my words about collective vs individual. Russian culture (in broad sense) has always been collectivist, opposed to individualist Western culture, and still IS collectivist, though communism has gone. 
BTW, Communism found rich soil for itself in Russia because of our collectivism, not the other way round.

----------


## Aristodorus

> A friend of mine speaks Greek, so if you would send them, I would appreciate it.

 e-mail?

----------


## the_intrepid

> e-mail?

 s t r u c t u r e n u @ y a h o o . c o m 
[Remove the spaces, of course. I added the 'white spaces' to throw off spam bots that search the web for emails.]

----------


## El Casey

As an American, I must join in.  ::  
I loathe Bush...I was misguided enough to vote for him in 2000, but since 9/11 I've learned the actual designs he had for his administration, and it scares the hell out of me. Because of the neoconservative elements of the Republican Party (Bush, Ashcroft - those types), I will never vote for a single member of their party ever again. Never mind the fact that I'm made a steady march from right-of-center to far-left in the days following Sept. 11, 2001. 
To give you an idea of how much I think about what these people are doing, both domestically and internationally, my current slogan is "Moscow by '09!" That's right, folks! This Florida boy is hoping to call Moscow his home within 5 years (I have to get a Bachelor's degree in Russian first  ::  ). 
So don't think all of us are chauvinistic, jingoist capitalist running dogs, who are both arrogant and ignorant. Because we're not _all_ like that!  ::

----------


## the_intrepid

> So don't think all of us are chauvinistic, jingoist capitalist running dogs, who are both arrogant and ignorant. Because we're not _all_ like that!

 It's funny... Bush, Rumsfield and almost all of the other major Republicans these days aren't very "Conservative" at all. Hell, the one Republican that maintains his stance as a Fiscally Conservative Republican is Ron Paul (of Texas). George W. Bush spends money like a Liberal, not to mention the fact that he lied about, if not completely abandonded, many of the "Conservative/Republican" ideals he ran for President on. 
Like I said, either earlier here or elsewhere on this site, Bush (like his father... and Rumsfeld) are RiNOs --- Republicans In Name Only. 
If you're going to equate George W. Bush and jingoists with capitalists, then I'll not be missing your stupidity. Have fun in Moscow El Casey.

----------


## 44 Canon

The true republican party is the Libertarian party, although their is some silliness in the libertarian party as well.
 Extremism in this world is spreading like a plague, and it's inevitably only a matter of time before it turns in to an international holocaust.

----------


## Линдзи

While I disagree with a significant bit of your post (GWB is a fine, fine example of a capitalist, alas), the_intrepid, I will give you that our current government is not "conservative" in the least.  I know some true conservatives, and they are fine folks.  Bush Jr. et al are not to be counted among their number.

----------


## Pravit

Oh? Lindzi isn't dead either? Suddenly, I felt a surge of joy.

----------


## DDT

You've got that right, Mr Cannon 44........."The true republican party is the Libertarian party" 
Intrepid,   I dont know why you wasted time replying to Aristodorus. He sounds like he has been listening to the ramblings of neo nazis. The Israeli Army kicks ass and have been way to casual with their enemies lately. They have every right to that piece of ground they live on. Most Americans who don't support the state of Israel are simply ignorant of the history around it. It is no wonder they don't know if all they listen to is the 6 o'clock news.
    Israel is the only democratic or civillized country in the region. We would be foolish not to support her.

----------


## Линдзи

> Oh? Lindzi isn't dead either? Suddenly, I felt a surge of joy.

 Glad to oblige, Pravitushka.   
DDT!  Good gravy.  "Simply ignorant of the history"?  The more history I read, the less I endorse Israel's current behavior.  I'm not about to get into a net-simian poo-slinging match, but such a blanket statement is, in a word, preposterous.  Call me crazy, but "democratic" and "civilized" nations shouldn't, generally, bulldoze houses with grannies inside.  Among other things.

----------


## DDT

"I'm not about to get into a net-simian poo-slinging match, but" 
 Then why did you bother to post?

----------


## DDT

http://jewishworldreview.com/0604/sharansky_reagan.php3  http://www.jewishworldreview.com/jeff/j ... 05_07.php3

----------


## Линдзи

> "I'm not about to get into a net-simian poo-slinging match, but" 
>  Then why did you bother to post?

 Jackass, when I sling poo, you'll know it.  The post above was as inoffensive as I could make it, considering the number of idiotic components to your statement that I could have torn into.  Sadly, my computer time here is limited, meaning I can't sit here typing for the myriad eons it would take to give you some sort of education.  And no amount of education would create in you critical thinking skills, so it'd probably be a waste of my time.

----------


## DDT

Just as I thought, you have nothing to add to the subject ecept your emotion and name calling.  I think it is you who should be educated.
   You only have to punch the information into a computer once
        I'll bet that it is not so with you! 
  A few facts on the subject  for anyone interested. I know Lindsay is not.  
Number of times Jerusalem is mentioned in the Hebrew Bible: over 700 
Number of times Jerusalem is mentioned in the Koran: 0 
Number of Arab leaders who visited Jerusalem when it was under Arab rule (1948 to 1967): 1 
Number of Arab refugees who fled the land that became Israel: approximately 600,000 
Number of Jewish refugees who fled Arab countries: approximately 600,000 
Number of U.N. agencies that deal only with Palestinian refugees: 1 
Number of U.N. agencies that deal with all the other refugees in the world: 1 
Number of Jewish states that have existed on the land called Palestine: 3 
Number of Arab or Muslim states that have existed on the land called Palestine: 0 
Number of terrorist attacks by Israelis or Jews since 1967: 1 
Number of terrorist attacks by Arabs or Muslims since 1967: thousands 
Percentage of Jews who have praised the Jewish terrorist: approximately .1 
Percentage of Palestinians who have praised Islamic terrorists: approximately 90 
Number of Jewish countries: 1 
Number of Jewish democracies: 1 
Number of Arab countries: 19 
Number of Arab democracies: 0 
Number of Arab women killed annually by fathers and brothers in "honor killings": thousands 
Number of Jewish women killed annually by fathers and brothers in "honor killings": 0 
Number of Christian or Jewish prayer services allowed in Saudi Arabia: 0 
Number of Muslim prayer services allowed in Israel: unlimited 
Number of Arabs Israel allows to live in Arab settlements in Israel: 1,250,000 
Number of Jews Palestinian Authority allows to live in Jewish settlements in Palestinian Authority: 0 
Percentage of U.N. Commission on Human Rights resolutions condemning an Arab country for human rights violations: 0 
Percentage of U.N. Commission on Human Rights resolutions condemning Israel for human rights violations: 26 
Number of U.N. Security Council resolutions on the Middle East between 1948 and 1991: 175 
Number of these resolutions against Israel: 97 
Number of these resolutions against an Arab state: 4 
Number of Arab countries that have been members of the U.N. Security Council: 16 
Number of times Israel has been a member of the U.N. Security Council: 0 
Number of U.N. General Assembly resolutions condemning Israel: 322 
Number of U.N. General Assembly resolutions condemning an Arab country: 0 
Percentage of U.N. votes in which Arab countries voted with the United States in 2002: 16.6 
Percentage of U.N. votes in which Israel voted with the United States in 2002: 92.6 
Percentage of Middle East Studies professors who defend Zionism and Israel: approximately 1. 
Percentage of Middle East Studies professors who believe in diversity on college campuses: 100 
Percentage of people who argue that the Jewish state has no right to exist who also believe some other country has no right to exist: 0 
Percentage of people who argue that of all the countries in the world, only the Jewish state has no right to exist and yet deny they are anti-Jewish: approximately 100 
Number of Muslims in the world: more than 1 billion 
Number of Muslim demonstrations against Islamic terror: approximately 2

----------


## Линдзи

Fine research, sir.  Clearly you are highly educated on this matter.  Would you care to post sources for your statistics?

----------


## Dogboy182

I know ! I know!  _FOX NEWS_ HEY GUYS. I just heard the terror alert went through the roof ! AGIAN !

----------


## DDT

Unfortunately I am not educated at all. School of Hard Knocks only. 
Surf around    www.jewishworldreview.com      and you will find this information and more.

----------


## DDT

I will have no internet access for a week or so. I will catch up with this thread then.   
Has anyone been watching the Russian olympic gymnasts?   Someone should start a thread on Pavlova.

----------


## Dogboy182

Yea, or svertlana who got beat by a 16 year old.   ::    
I kinda felt bad for her... because i mean... she has been workin her whole life for the gold but... just couldn't quite make it.
Though, 1337 Carley patterson won gold for the good ol usa, so, i guess it's not all the bad.

----------


## astarz41

Awww Sveta...I was so sad for her!   ::  Carly won fairly, but Khorkina is still the queen, she kicks butt!   ::   I hope she wins the uneven bars again and leaves the Olys with a gold medal. 
And yeah, Anna Pavlova should have been freakin 3rd!

----------


## 44 Canon

On the Issue with the Jews and Palestinians, the best thing they can do is just stop fighting eachother.
 Their is no good reason for their feud, yet they still keep going on.
 My respect for democracy is only one step above socialism, but if that's what Israel want, then they can have at it.
 As I said before, if I were president, I would step away from that whole mess and let their business be their business.
 As for the Olympics, it is both interesting and sad. Interesting for watching only a moment that they have trained their whole lives for where every last thing makes a big difference. Sad because of those who painfully walk away short or empty handed do to a very slight glitch or accident, often triggered by random events. I saw one guy so beat up over an outright collapse that the judge had to pressure him to finish what he was doing.
 It's hard to see that, and with the equality of skills between the different athletes, most are number 1 in my book, with who gets what medals as nothing more then a role of the dice.

----------


## Линдзи

> I know ! I know!  _FOX NEWS_ HEY GUYS. I just heard the terror alert went through the roof ! AGIAN !

   ::   
Sorry, DDT, the "school of hard knocks" doesn't count as a source of statistical data.  And making up statistics based on your own (non-)experience only makes you look like a dip.

----------


## DDT

Well Lindsay. You seem to be missing the point. You clench your fist and the truth slips out between your fingers. Go check the numbers for yourself. What if they're right?

----------


## Линдзи

Heh.  "Go check the numbers for yourself!"  The timeless cry of the pseudo-intellectual without any actual resources.  Thank you, I have perused the issue in some depth, and your inane vagaries and rumblings hold little interest for me.  Other than giving me a chance to exercise my mockery muscles, of course.

----------


## DDT

I am glad to hear that you have "persued the issue to some depth" already. This means that you must understand that Israel has been the only legitimate country on the soil called Palestine for several thousand years. Israel was renamed Palestine by the Romans as an insult to them, as the Philistines (Palestinians) had been their ancient enemy. 
The BalflourDeclaration in 1917 was intended to form the nation of Israel, once more. It origially included the whole of Trans Jordan as part of Israel and would have been so, if not for a few back stabbing English polititions. By the time 1948 came along, Israel had been so sliced up (west bank, gaza) there was not much left. Israel was attacked again in 1967 by overwhealming forces, including those in the West Bank. Under the terms of war when an attacking agressive country lose the war they started (Palestinians) they can also lose their territory. 
So since you already know all this, why is it that say that you do not support Israel. Please do not say it is because of an old lady bulldozed in her house.

----------


## flutterby145

> Well, I don't _like_ America, and I do think they may be abusing their power, but hey, that's wholly in their right as a superpower. If Communism had won, wouldn't the Soviet Union be imposing their rule on every country in the world? Wait a couple of centuries and the USA too will collapse, like the Roman, Spanish and British Empires before it. 
> .

 I totally agree. I believe the American Empire will one day collapse, just like the Roman, Spanish, British and Soviet Empires. The USA may be taking  advantage of our powers as the world's major superpower, but then again, isn't it our right, as the worlds major superpower, to want people everywhere to live like we do? 
Let's reverse the roles for a minute. Let's say it was the United States that collapsed, and the Soviet Union "won" the Cold War. Then, today the Soviet Union would be the world's dominate superpower, wouldn't the Soviet Union try to impose their beliefs, way of life, and their rule upon the rest of the world? Wouldn't the Soviet Union want everybody to live like they do?

----------


## Soinus

oh really?  ::   ::   ::

----------


## Бармалей

> oh really?

 Wow. Way to revive a four month old thread without saying anything useful! And why do you have some spammersh|t embedded in your comment?   ::

----------


## TATY

> Originally Posted by Soinus  oh really?      Wow. Way to revive a four month old thread without saying anything useful! And why do you have some spammersh|t embedded in your comment?

 It's it more than a year old? December 2004.

----------


## Бармалей

> Originally Posted by Barmaley        Originally Posted by Soinus  oh really?      Wow. Way to revive a four month old thread without saying anything useful! And why do you have some spammersh|t embedded in your comment?     It's it more than a year old? December 2004.

 Right. I'm still living on 2005 time, three months into 2006.   ::   Either that, or my math skill have seriously eroded since 1st grade...

----------


## Seventh-Monkey

Any there not actually any active moderators here?

----------


## Бармалей

> Any there not actually any active moderators here?

 They've all in prison, by now I suppose...  ::

----------


## kalinka_vinnie

Check your posts guys, before I open a can of bad grammarian worms!!! There are Russian people watching you!

----------


## kalinka_vinnie

Your point is that in a capitalist society, people can not spell?

----------


## Бармалей

> and in the other one (cant spell it) The lazy prosper

 LMAO! That would be "laissez faire" -- and you would be a moron.   ::   ::   ::   ::  Try to stick to words that are 3 letters or less from now on, so as to not overtax your brain.

----------


## patriot

I hate getting flamed by a bunch of Hooligans

----------


## TATY

> I hate getting flamed by a bunch of Hooligans

 So it happens often? 
And you respect us Hooligans enough to capitalise us   ::

----------

