Jump to content

Theme© by Fisana
 

Photo

The hysterical left.


  • Please log in to reply
3514 replies to this topic

#121 Miss Astrojet

Miss Astrojet

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 4456 posts

Posted 02 October 2005 - 06:46 AM

Brendon has never actually visited a Commie country to see how things worked under the socialist brotherhood and unity garbage. I did and saw it first hand in the former Yugo.
  • 0

#122 Brendon

Brendon

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 13976 posts

Posted 02 October 2005 - 06:58 AM

Miss Astrojet,

with regards to Iraq: IRAQ WASN'T A COMMUNIST COUNTRY.

You people who keep on going on about the left seem to be stuck in a political time-warp. This isn't Vietnam; this isn't Korea; its not the Cold War.

I was addressing the "Iraq" part of Teapot's post. In Australia, there is a lot of support for Bush from the communist side. So if you are addressing me, you will have to dscuss that.
  • 0

#123 JohnathanRGalt

JohnathanRGalt

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1912 posts

Posted 02 October 2005 - 06:58 AM

Miss Astrojet
Brendon has never actually visited a Commie country to see how things worked under the socialist brotherhood and unity garbage. I did and saw it first hand in the former Yugo.

Firsthand evidence trumps secondhand hear-say.
  • 0

#124 NonZionist

NonZionist

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2218 posts

Posted 02 October 2005 - 02:30 PM

Originally posted by JohnathanRGalt
....
I'm having trouble believing that the "neo-cons" as you call them, "helped Pol Pot to come to power" -- but what'ever, I'm sure you'll provide us with a URL to prove your point.

Otherwise we'll have to assume you are telling us a lie.

I happen to be an actual 'neo-con' (and proud of it!) -- I have never conspired with the Pol-Pot regime!, and if you say otherwise, then you are a liar.
.






Thank you, Jonathan, for finally giving me an HONEST, INTELLIGENT response.

Like the communists, neo-cons tend to live in a world of mindless slogans. They scream these slogans over and over, till they believe their own propaganda, but they seldom, if ever, engage their MINDS. Like the commies, they speak to us through bullhorns, with mouth engaged but mind asleep. See the excerpt from "Commissar Frum", below.

But now, at last, you have gone beyond the slogans! This is greatly encouraging.




You asked about the U.S. and Pol Pot. In my earlier message, I did NOT say that the neo-cons gave us Pol Pot. Back in the early 1970s, the neo-cons were still struggling to entrench themselves. U.S.I. foreign policy, at that time, was determined by more "respectable" forces, mainly by Kissinger and his pals.


What I DID say is that the Trotskyites are raving mass-murdering IDEOLOGUES. LIKE the Maoists and the Khmer Rouge, the Trotskyites elevate blind ideology above common sense and moral sensibility. They are, in effect, a secular CULT.


The U.S.I. helped the Khmer Rouge to come to power when it carpet-bombed neutral Cambodia. The bombing killed 600,000 people, according to some sources, destabilized the Lon Nol regime, and thus paved the way for the Khmer Rouge to take over.


This is common knowledge. If you need a source, here is one of many:

http://www.antiwar.c...?articleid=5170
+(
The Unpredictability of Revolutions

by Patrick J. Buchanan / March 14, 2005
....
When we Americans think of revolution, we think of the Spirit of '76 and the republic that came out of our War of Independence. But when Louis XVI was dethroned in 1789, that revolution gave us the guillotine, the Terror, and the Napoleonic wars. When kings depart, democracy is not always at hand.

What is critical in a revolution is the character of the men who make it. When the czar abdicated, a democratic socialist took power, but a weak Alexander Kerensky was soon run out of the Winter Palace by Bolsheviks. After World War II, there came the Chinese and Cuban revolutions that looked to the Russian as the model. As did Pol Pot's revolution in Cambodia, which came out of an earlier American intervention.
....
)+

Buchanan is a GENUINE conservative. He wants to conserve traditional American ideals and values -- the primacy of the individual, small government, freedom, equality, the rule of law. He opposes empire-building and war-making.




Here are two more sources:


http://www.antiwar.c...?articleid=6503
+(
They Died for Their Country
by Tom Engelhardt and Paul Rogat Loeb / July 1, 2005
....
Five Concord men died in Vietnam joining 58,000 other Americans, one to two million Vietnamese, and four million who died after we overthrew a long-neutral Cambodian government and paved the way for Pol Pot. One died in our 1965 invasion of the Dominican Republic, which helped prevent the return of a democratically elected president and installed a corrupt oligarch who would rule for nearly three decades.
....
)+


http://antiwar.com/o...?articleid=1807
+(
Recalling Pol Pot's Terror, but Forgetting His Backers

by John Pilger / January 31, 2004
....
The genocide in Cambodia did not begin on April 17 1975, "Year Zero." It began more than five years earlier when American bombers killed an estimated 600,000 Cambodians. Phosphorous and cluster bombs, napalm and dump bombs that left vast craters were dropped on a neutral country of peasant people and straw huts. In one six-month period in 1973, more tons of American bombs were dropped on Cambodia than were dropped on Japan during the second world war: the equivalent of five Hiroshimas. The regime of Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger did this, secretly and illegally.

Unclassified CIA files leave little doubt that the bombing was the catalyst for Pol Pot's fanatics, who, before the inferno, had only minority support. Now, a stricken people rallied to them. In Panh's film, a torturer refers to the bombing as his reason for joining "the maquis": the Khmer Rouge. What Nixon and Kissinger began, Pol Pot completed. And having been driven out by the Vietnamese, who came from the wrong side of the cold war, the Khmer Rouge were restored in Thailand by the Reagan administration, assisted by the Thatcher government, who invented a "coalition" to provide the cover for America's continuing war against Vietnam.
)+




The last article aludes to something that is less commonly known: that the U.S.I. gave material and political support to the Khmer Rouge AFTER 1980! This is AFTER the Khmer Rouge butchered over a million of their compatriots! I saw this support first-hand in 1980, and it shocked me to the bone. It was a turning point in my political education.

Here's a source for the later charge:

http://www.freeforum...orum=times#6901
+(
Pol Pot, the U.S.I., and the Sonnenfeldt Doctrine
....
)+

That post quotes the following article:

http://www.consider....forum_new.php3? ...
+(
How Thatcher gave Pol Pot a hand
John Pilger Monday / New Statesman (UK) / April 17, 2000
....
)+




The difference between the neo-cons and the paleo-cons (REAL conservatives) is, in part, the difference between sloganeering and philosophy!

http://www.antiwar.c...in/j032203.html
+(
COMMISSAR FRUM
Former Presidential speechwriter smears antiwar conservatives
by Justin Raimondo / March 22, 2003
....
Worst of all, the robotic mentality of the ideologue cannot perceive or understand emotions. That's why the neocon concept of patriotism - in their flat, one-dimensional world - takes on the hectoring Soviet tone that recalls the leftist origins of Frum's faction. Frum's antennae can't pick up the ineffable sadness in my tone: he is, in a literary sense, completely tone-deaf. It's sad, really, to contemplate, and more than validates Russell Kirk's 1991 warning to the rising generation of conservatives:

"Conservatism is the negation of ideology. Ideology is an attempt to govern all life by political slogans; while American conservatives believe that no mere political formulas can make a people content. Conservatives take for their guide in politics what Edmund Burke called 'the wisdom of the species': that is, the experience of human beings in community, extending over many centuries. Thus, American conservatism is a cast of mind and character, not a neat body of political abstractions. Ideology is political fanaticism, an endeavor to rule the world by rigorous abstract dogmata. The dogmata of an abstract 'democratic capitalism' may be mischievous as the dogmata of Marx."

We watch, in horrified fascination, as Bush's centurions pour into Iraq, and the dangerous mischief Kirk feared is all around us. Skeptics are "defeatists." Prudence is "terror denial." An internet link is evidence of a conspiracy to commit sedition.
)+
  • 0

#125 farmer

farmer

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1407 posts

Posted 02 October 2005 - 02:37 PM

Originally posted by NonZionist
I'm not opposed to sharing, Farmer, but the sharing should be VOLUNTARY.

Government is INVOLUNTARY: Either you pay, or you go to prison.




Private charities are diverse. They compete. The donor is free to give SELECTIVELY. The donor is not forced to give to charities that are corrupt or inefficient.

Compare the private sector with government. Government has a monopoly. No matter how corrupt and deranged it gets, one is forced to support it. There is no incentive for government to be anything BUT corrupt! Honest citizens who oppose the corruption have no leverage, no influence. Gangsters rule.




Yes, I was helped by family and friends. But these people are not the government. One is free to drop friends who turn into enemies, and the relationship with parents changes as one approaches the age of majority.




Freedom, equality, and justice? -- these are things I fervently support.

The neo-cons make a travesty of these great ideals.

For example, the Bushoviks claim that it is the job of the U.S.I. regime to MAKE people "free" in Iraq. The result, we see, is catastrophic.

MAKING people "equal" is no less problematic. People should have equal rights, and are equal in the eyes of God. But government is not God!

When the regime starts playing God, we are on the path to hell. What God gives, God can take away.

The Leninists were pragmatic and Lenin tried to re-introduce small-scale private enterprise in the NEP period.

The Trotskyites were raving idealists, not at all pragmatic. They had no problem with killing whoever stood in the way of their utopia. When such ideologues come to power, the death toll is likely to be in the millions -- as it was in China and again in Cambodia when the U.S.I. helped Pol Pot to come to power.

THAT is the "Left" we're talking about! THAT is the "Left" that Teapot and his fellow neo-cons represent.




http://www.booknotes...?ProgramID=1752
+(
... according to State Department records, international terrorists in 1980s and `90s killed about 8,000 people around the world. In the same period, governments killed over 10 million people. Governments are a far greater danger to people and to peace than are terrorists.
)+
-- James Bovard, libertarian author interviewed on C-SPAN


.....................................
Okay.........let's agree to disagree. The authoritarianism you call "left", I call facsism. I believe the twist that has been put on the neo-con coup in the US is misleading, but apparently it satisfies those who still BELIEVE in capitalism and individualism. So be it. I hope you work it out.

Just one thing NZ.............Quote "Private charities are diverse. They compete. The donor is free to give SELECTIVELY. The donor is not forced to give to charities that are corrupt or inefficient." Unquote

I think this shows the bias of a (to-this-point), self-sufficient man.
What would you say if I said sharing is NOT about the sharer. It is about the needy one. Have you never considered how demeaning it is to recieve "charity" rather than a "right"? Socialism says it is a right to have shelter, healthcare, food and education. Nobody even in the worst circumstances has to feel demeaned and unworthy by recieving the aid they are due as community members....(under socialism that is).

As for the worship of entrepeneurship. Give me a break. The world could do very well with a lot less of them and their wasteful businesses. Entrepeneurship is just ONE of many human talents. After a certain point "competition" is no longer holy. It is a colossal waste of time , energy and resources. It has become a problem child in regard to human survival. Just a fact. Junk is junk and unnecessary junk is a "sin".:chok: :crazy:
  • 0

#126 farmer

farmer

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1407 posts

Posted 02 October 2005 - 02:45 PM

Originally posted by Californian
'Left' or 'Right', we're talking about BushCo.

Economically, we've always had a mix of socialism and capitalism. BushCo is trying to erase all socialism. At the rate they are trying to go, we'll have to hire our own police and firemen, and change the bulbs in our own street lamps. Potholes will be allowed to grow and flourish.

For human needs, Churches and charities are supposed to takeover. We found out with Katrina that the Red Cross (and others charities) can only do so much before they're over their heads.

There's a sensible balance between government and the private sector that Bush is eroding. Government paying for services from the private sector to perform these functions is the worst of both worlds.


.........................
:cheers:
  • 0

#127 NonZionist

NonZionist

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2218 posts

Posted 02 October 2005 - 02:49 PM

Originally posted by Miss Astrojet
Brendon has never actually visited a Commie country to see how things worked under the socialist brotherhood and unity garbage. I did and saw it first hand in the former Yugo.






Have you ever actually visited -- or better, lived in -- fascist Israel, occupied palestine, or Occupied Territory II, the U.S.I.?


If you visit one of your fascist utopias, I think you'll see that things work EVEN LESS well under the ethnic supremacy garbage.
  • 0

#128 NonZionist

NonZionist

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2218 posts

Posted 02 October 2005 - 03:43 PM

Originally posted by farmer
Okay.........let's agree to disagree. The authoritarianism you call "left", I call facsism. I believe the twist that has been put on the neo-con coup in the US is misleading, but apparently it satisfies those who still BELIEVE in capitalism and individualism. So be it. I hope you work it out.

Just one thing NZ.............Quote "Private charities are diverse. They compete. The donor is free to give SELECTIVELY. The donor is not forced to give to charities that are corrupt or inefficient." Unquote

I think this shows the bias of a (to-this-point), self-sufficient man.
What would you say if I said sharing is NOT about the sharer. It is about the needy one. Have you never considered how demeaning it is to recieve "charity" rather than a "right"? Socialism says it is a right to have shelter, healthcare, food and education. Nobody even in the worst circumstances has to feel demeaned and unworthy by recieving the aid they are due as community members....(under socialism that is).

As for the worship of entrepeneurship. Give me a break. The world could do very well with a lot less of them and their wasteful businesses. Entrepeneurship is just ONE of many human talents. After a certain point "competition" is no longer holy. It is a colossal waste of time , energy and resources. It has become a problem child in regard to human survival. Just a fact. Junk is junk and unnecessary junk is a "sin".:chok: :crazy:





I love dialogu8ing with you, Farmer. You speak from sensitivity, not from ideology. I aspire to do the same.

I do not give blind unconditional support to capitalism. Although I'm a libertarian, I'm not an Ayn Rand utopian!


As any open-eyed person can see, capitalism has serious shortcomings. The rich become richer -- and more powerful. Capitalism concentrates wealth in fewer and fewer hands, till finally, the economy chokes. An economic depression then occurs, and those who are already rich buy up whole cities for pennies on the dollar.


The "Left" naively favors big government. But the rich can buy up politicians as easily as they buy up cities. Thus, it is a mistake to rely on government to protect us from predatory capitalists -- the "protectors", more often than not, are wolves in sheep's clothing.

In fact, the government FURTHER EMPOWERS the rich, because it enables them to cloak their use of force in "legitimacy". A classic example is the April 14, 1920 Ludlow massacre in Colorado: J.D. Rockefeller used the Colorado National Guard to machine-gun a tent-camp of striking miners. The state government was used to mow down American men, women, and children.

Andrew Carnegie, similarly, used the Pennsylvania militia to break the strike at Homestead. See:

http://www.alienlove...order=0&thold=0

The surviving strikers learned the hard way that the "Left" is dead wrong when it advises us to "TRUST Big Brother".




A compromise solution is what I call "AUTOMATIC government" -- universal programs like Social Security that distribute resources efficiently and indiscriminately, with a minimum of involvement by politicians and social workers.

I believe too that we need to automate the representation process. I advocate that we supplement our corrupt and ineffective "elections" with what I call "aleatory democracy" -- random selection from a pool of qualified volunteers. That is, we should extend the well-tested juror selection process into the realm of political representation.

Aleatory democracy would eliminate all of the evils that flow from elections -- dependence on campaign doners, factionalism, divisive demogogy, broken promises, voter cynicism and apathy. Over time, random selection would yield proportional representation, since pure chance has no political bias. It would make it possible for honest, intelligent people to become representatives.

Random selection would also bring scoundrels to power, but the present system also does that. In fact, the present system gives scoundrels the advantage, since one almost HAS TO BE CORRUPT in order to get campaign funding.




I don't make an idol out of competition. I agree that competition can be ether constructive or destructive. Every sport needs a referee -- thus I see a NEED for government.

But we need to keep the number of referees to a minimum, and we should use automation -- e.g., "instant replay" -- as much as possible. It's no fun when the referees on the field outnumber the players.


In short, I agree with Thomas Paine and George Washington:

+(
<B>Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.</b>
)+
- Thomas Paine, Common Sense, 1776

+(
Government is not reason, it is not eloquence - it is a force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master; never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.
)+
-- George Washington



If there were a way to make government GENUINELY democratic and responsible, I might feel differently.

But so far, the governments we've created have been defective machines. Like a car without brakes, these machines have turned into death-traps.
  • 0

#129 Horseman

Horseman

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 18434 posts

Posted 02 October 2005 - 08:51 PM

Originally posted by Miss Astrojet
Give that man a CIGAR!!!!!!!!



An I thought you hated Clinton, hey Tosspot there you have it your very own Monica Lewinsky.......
  • 0

#130 Horseman

Horseman

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 18434 posts

Posted 02 October 2005 - 08:56 PM

Originally posted by stilicho
The demolition of the USSR and now the confrontation with the Islamic extremists.



Odd you would mention the destruction of the USSR in the same sentence as the confrontation with Islamic extremists....

Maybe history isnt your subject, but that USSR destruction was done with the help of those same Islamic extremists....

Are you sayying America has a userist policey like taking the side of Egypt over the Suez Canal against Isreal, France and the Britis....
  • 0

#131 Miss Astrojet

Miss Astrojet

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 4456 posts

Posted 02 October 2005 - 10:03 PM

Horsepile, obviously Drano is your Lewinsky.:D
  • 0

#132 abbracadabra

abbracadabra

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1545 posts

Posted 03 October 2005 - 12:28 AM

Lewinsky



that reminds me
Bush in Hell

One day in the future, George Bush has a heart attack and dies. He
immediately goes to hell, where the devil is waiting for him.

"I don't know what to do," says the devil. "You're on my list, but I have
no room for you. You definitely have to stay here, so I'll tell you what
I'm going to do. Believe it or not I've got some folks here who weren't
quite as bad as you. I'll let one of them go, but you have to take their
place. I'll even let YOU decide who leaves."

Bush thought that sounded pretty good, so the devil opened the first room.
In it was Ronald Reagan and a large pool of water. He kept diving in and
surfacing over and over again. Such was his fate in hell.

"No," George said. "I don't think so. I'm not a good swimmer & I don't
think I could do that all day long".

The devil led him to the next room. In it was Richard Nixon with a sledge
hammer and a room full of rocks. All he did was swing that hammer, time
after time after time.

"No, I've got this problem with my shoulder. I'd be in constant agony if
all I could do was break rocks all day," said George.

The devil opened a third door. In it, Bush saw Bill Clinton, lying on the
floor with his arms tied behind his head, and his legs in a spread eagle
pose. Bent over him was Monica Lewinsky, doing what she does best. Bush
looked in disbelief and finally said, "Yea, I can handle this."

The devil smiled and said "OK, Monica, you're free to go."
  • 0

#133 Brendon

Brendon

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 13976 posts

Posted 03 October 2005 - 01:59 AM

Originally posted by Mr Teapot
Well at least your lefty girl has some redeeming features. I guess her brainwashed youth was probably incomplete.
Some hope for her but alas, too late for you Brendon.
......



Comrade Teapot,

Trust you to take the communist's side against me once again! :rolleyes: Just like when I bought up the Troskyite Hitchens; you take his side. And when I posted the Maoist Langer's article; you supported him against me. And the communist English gent; once again you were for him and against me.

Confess Teapot, you are an old leftie marxist, aren't you? ;)
  • 0

#134 farmer

farmer

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1407 posts

Posted 03 October 2005 - 02:58 AM

Originally posted by Brendon
Farmer, you should read up on the origins of the neocon philosophy. Trotsky and Strauss are at its core. Read parts of them and you think you are reading Bush league policy.

It should illuminate you as to why I think splitting the current debate of Bush's war for big business has buggerall to do with left/right politics. That Christopher Hitchens, the so-called former Trotskyite, fell in with the pro war crowd so easily is an indication that it isn't to do with left/right. An element of the old radical left, in the guise of the neocons, have dressed themselves up as conservatives to get their hands on American policy. They have taken over policy in a major conservative government. It has produced a strange mix of interventionism, and low taxes; war, and low taxes; record government spending, and low taxes; record public debt, and low taxes; record profits for major transnationals, and record public debt.

Traditionally the Left is interventionalist in the economy.

But there is nothing laissez-faire about the current "right" leaning governments of the West. There never was, really. Big spending and small government is the method by which the major transnationals rob the people. But nobody ever discusses that. If the major oil companies get their oil out of Iraq, will the governments ask them for some of the dough it costs us taxpayers to get them in there in the first place? "User pays", my arse!

Traditionally, the Right is free trade.

Free market in the West at the moment is an illusion. Cheap goods from China is supposed to be an example of free trade. But nothing could have been more interventionalist than the policies which bought it about. China couldn't get into western markets in any great way until it agreed to surrender ownership of its industry to the western transnationals. China is a huge importer of western produce that it in turn either consumes or uses in value-adding and exporting back to the West. The issues of cross-ownership and governmental intervention on both sides are huge. Its a very controlled operation. We just see the goods in the store and think "Wow! How do they do it? Must be free trade".

Traditionally the left is more liberal in matters of public morality, whereas the right has a history of religious virtue.

But as for public morals, nobody could have been more puritanical than that extreme leftie, Maximilien Marie Isidore de Robespierre. And you could fill a couple of football stadiums with right wing sinners.

In order to get that jubbly-lovely power, one can't do it by one's self! You have to promote yourself as a warrior for God (Osama, GWB), or a warrior for economic and political change (Lenin). Whatever wagon is the flavour of the time, jump on it and hope you can kill off all your competitors for the top job on the way up. And if you can't do it the more literal Saddam-Way, try the political assinations that Karl Rove is so good at. Thats what its all about. Left and Right is irrelevant.


.........................
Yeah you're right about my need to read Brendon. Granted. (I'm sort of caught up with Climate Change right now....with only minutes to read per day. Harvest and all that you know).

BUT your present thesis is saying, virtually, that the ImpeachBush.org movement should really be ImpeachMarx or Trostsky or Lenin.org. WHERE does the fabled right-wing "personal accountability" come in? What's the use of indicting a bunch of dead men? Bush and co are your men and they are all right-wing capitalists...........(which makes this coup against America a fascist phenomenon.......NOT a communist one.) NO way out of it. Sorry.:uh: :uh: :uh:

PS Hitchens is a sorry spectacle alright!:bwadr:
  • 0

#135 farmer

farmer

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1407 posts

Posted 03 October 2005 - 03:20 AM

Originally posted by NonZionist
I love dialogu8ing with you, Farmer. You speak from sensitivity, not from ideology. I aspire to do the same.

I do not give blind unconditional support to capitalism. Although I'm a libertarian, I'm not an Ayn Rand utopian!


As any open-eyed person can see, capitalism has serious shortcomings. The rich become richer -- and more powerful. Capitalism concentrates wealth in fewer and fewer hands, till finally, the economy chokes. An economic depression then occurs, and those who are already rich buy up whole cities for pennies on the dollar.


The "Left" naively favors big government. But the rich can buy up politicians as easily as they buy up cities. Thus, it is a mistake to rely on government to protect us from predatory capitalists -- the "protectors", more often than not, are wolves in sheep's clothing.

In fact, the government FURTHER EMPOWERS the rich, because it enables them to cloak their use of force in "legitimacy". A classic example is the April 14, 1920 Ludlow massacre in Colorado: J.D. Rockefeller used the Colorado National Guard to machine-gun a tent-camp of striking miners. The state government was used to mow down American men, women, and children.

Andrew Carnegie, similarly, used the Pennsylvania militia to break the strike at Homestead. See:

http://www.alienlove...order=0&thold=0

The surviving strikers learned the hard way that the "Left" is dead wrong when it advises us to "TRUST Big Brother".




A compromise solution is what I call "AUTOMATIC government" -- universal programs like Social Security that distribute resources efficiently and indiscriminately, with a minimum of involvement by politicians and social workers.

I believe too that we need to automate the representation process. I advocate that we supplement our corrupt and ineffective "elections" with what I call "aleatory democracy" -- random selection from a pool of qualified volunteers. That is, we should extend the well-tested juror selection process into the realm of political representation.

Aleatory democracy would eliminate all of the evils that flow from elections -- dependence on campaign doners, factionalism, divisive demogogy, broken promises, voter cynicism and apathy. Over time, random selection would yield proportional representation, since pure chance has no political bias. It would make it possible for honest, intelligent people to become representatives.

Random selection would also bring scoundrels to power, but the present system also does that. In fact, the present system gives scoundrels the advantage, since one almost HAS TO BE CORRUPT in order to get campaign funding.




I don't make an idol out of competition. I agree that competition can be ether constructive or destructive. Every sport needs a referee -- thus I see a NEED for government.

But we need to keep the number of referees to a minimum, and we should use automation -- e.g., "instant replay" -- as much as possible. It's no fun when the referees on the field outnumber the players.


In short, I agree with Thomas Paine and George Washington:

+(
<B>Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.</b>
)+
- Thomas Paine, Common Sense, 1776

+(
Government is not reason, it is not eloquence - it is a force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master; never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.
)+
-- George Washington



If there were a way to make government GENUINELY democratic and responsible, I might feel differently.

But so far, the governments we've created have been defective machines. Like a car without brakes, these machines have turned into death-traps.


......................
and got zapped by technology. Tomorrow, God/Allah/the Godess/Shiva/Gaia willing!

(You definitely have "potential" NonZ.) :wonder:

Where do these marvelous American dissidents come from?
:confused: :wonder:
  • 0

#136 Mr Teapot

Mr Teapot

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4631 posts

Posted 03 October 2005 - 03:35 AM

Brendon old ****, as in Rooster, whats with your obsessive fixation on Trotsky?

You seem to think that if there is any commonality, no matter how minute, between GW and Trotsky's actions then they must be the same. I suppose if you wish for something hard and long enough, your fantasy influences your subconscious sufficiently to present it to your senile frontal lobes as facts.

You argue that Trotsky is a major influence on GW, specifically with respect to Iraq.

Historian Stephen Schwartz:
"These are the two things that the neo-cons and the Trotskyists always have in common: the ability to anticipate rather than react and the moral courage to stand apart from liberal left opinion when liberal left opinion acts like a mob."


That is about as far as the similarity goes. The very best of Trotskyism parallels that of Conservatism while the worst embraces far left Socialism. Shame on you!

Try to find the lowest common denominator here Brendon old ****.

1. Any insurgent attack in Iraq is reported by reputable media as "A" car bombs "B".

2. Drano switches it around and claims "B" car bombs "A"


3. SourKraut regularly switches the bad guys with the good guys.

3. Jackass does like wise, after it has been interpreted from gibberish.

4. Brendon tries to switch Principled Conservatives with leftwing Commie Saddamites. A well worn Commie tactic.

The gang of four, shades of Red China.
  • 0

#137 Miss Astrojet

Miss Astrojet

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 4456 posts

Posted 03 October 2005 - 04:12 AM

NonZ I have never been to Israel. My experience has been limited to Yugo and other former East Bloc countries where there was clear social retardation owing to the socialist system that was in place in those countries. People had no inclination to further themselves or do anything worthwhile because they had no incentive to. They always got a measly paycheck and they knew they could never be fired. Everyone considered themselves a manager. When it came to customer relations they could care less if you the customer dropped dead. People gave nothing back to society, contributed nothing since they expected the state to provide everything for them....and what the state provided was pure mediocre junk. Since nobody could be fired you had umpteen thousand people doing the job designed for a few. The others just sat back smoked and gave you the lazy eyed look. Socialism, marxism communism is crap. Those who want it have never had to live through it. They are the ones who wear the shi-shi clothes, sit in Starbucks and wish they could join the Commie Party for two nights a week. What a laugh!
  • 0

#138 Brendon

Brendon

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 13976 posts

Posted 03 October 2005 - 04:34 AM

Comrade Teapot,

So far you are five for five in agreeing with left wing views I have posted. And now you even have farmer running interference for you.

How long have you and farmer been in cahoots!? It figures, though. Its always a "collective" effort with you types. ;)
  • 0

#139 Mr Teapot

Mr Teapot

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4631 posts

Posted 03 October 2005 - 05:07 AM

There you go again Brendon old ****.

Farmer is a pothead NDPer* which compared to Conservatives is much like trying to mix oil and water.

Now you have a persecution complex to add to the rest of your hallucinations.


*
NDP is the local Old Socialist Party.
  • 0

#140 Brendon

Brendon

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 13976 posts

Posted 03 October 2005 - 06:33 AM

You may be right, Teapot. Perhaps I've read you all wrong.

Here I am posting views and opinions of left wing people, and you are falling over yourself to agree with them, and I'm jumping to the conclusion that you are a commie type.

But perhaps I'm being a bit hasty in my judgement. I don't want to be seen to be unfair.

I'll give you another chance. Here's what I'll do. This time I will select a Conservative, and see what you think of his views. This should prove once and for all that you are a Conservative like you say you are. I hope.

Lets see now,:wonder: ......Hey, I know!:)... Patrick Buchanan is a Conservative, I believe!

He was a senior advisor to three Republican Presidents. From 1966 through 1974, he was confidant and assistant to Richard Nixon. In 1974, he served as assistant to Gerald Ford. From 1985 to 1987, he was White House Communications Director for Ronald Reagan. Now that is what I call a dyed in the wool conservative!

Here is what a Conservative says:

Bush's war risks the safety of America.

The price of U.S. occupation of Iraq, the price of U.S. empire in the Muslim world, is terror. The Islamic terrorists of 9/11 were over here because we were over there. We were attacked by suicide bombers in New York for the same reason that our Marines were attacked by a suicide bomber in Beirut. We took sides in a religious civil war, their war, and they want us out of that war. The fifteen hijackers from Saudi Arabia did not fly into the World Trade Center to protest the Bill of Rights. They want us off sacred Saudi soil and out of the Middle East. Is there anything over there--oil, bases, empire--worth risking an atomic bomb on U.S. soil?
-Source: Where The Right Went Wrong, by Pat Buchanan, p. 85 Sep 1, 2004



Teapot, this is the only Conservative's view on Iraq I have posted. Now if you are who you say you are (a conservative), surely you cannot but agree with him!
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Copyright © 2020 Pravda.Ru