Friends of AM23's: Jingjing and Chacha

KrAzY3

KrAzY3

CAGiversary!
Feedback
4 (100%)
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/63d181a0-9fe6-11da-a703-0000779e2340.html

"In a demonstration at the Surveillance Centre, part of an internet division that has seen its staff more than double to 100 in less than a year, officer Xu Qian shows how the Jingjing icon keeps pace whenever a user of a local discussion website scrolls down a page.

“He is just like a policeman, interactively moving along with you. Wherever you go, he is watching you,” Mr Xu says."

Yes, the thread title was a joke...
Given AM23's recent praise of China I thought it was relevant though.
 
I praised china? Oh, ya, I'm a commie now. I wonder if this is a transition from anti-semite to communist sympathizer, or if they both can co-exist. I'd hate to have to give up my jew hating ways.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']I praised china? Oh, ya, I'm a commie now. I wonder if this is a transition from anti-semite to communist sympathizer, or if they both can co-exist. I'd hate to have to give up my jew hating ways.[/QUOTE]

Well, if you knew your history you would know that communism hasn't been kind to jews.
 
[quote name='KrAzY3']Well, if you knew your history you would know that communism hasn't been kind to jews.[/QUOTE]

So all communist nations have specifically targeted jews? And all communist sympathizers are anti-semites? And since when have I supported communism?

You make too many assumptions.
 
How can you make several assumptions in a row and then accuse me of being the one making assumptions? Read what I said, understand what I said. Stop assuming it means more than it does.
 
They were sarcastic comments. I expected you to say no to the first 2 and I wasn't sure how you'd respond to the last part: "And since when have I supported communism?". Maybe you can say I should have said china instead of communism, but you've been accusing me defending/praising castro, praising china etc.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']They were sarcastic comments. I expected you to say no to the first 2 and I wasn't sure how you'd respond to the last part: "And since when have I supported communism?". Maybe you can say I should have said china instead of communism, but you've been accusing me defending/praising castro, praising china etc.[/QUOTE]

Now all we're doing is responding to sarcasm with sarcasm until one of us takes the bait, right?

Ok well, you're a liberal hippy tree hugger who writes love letters to Hugo Chavez n' stuff.
 
[quote name='KrAzY3']Uhh they were kind to the Jews?[/QUOTE]
My bad. I misread your post and thought you were asking what anti-communists have been unkind to Jews. Disregard.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']My bad. I misread your post and thought you were asking what anti-communists have been unkind to Jews. Disregard.[/QUOTE]

Shh, just join the fun and be sarcastic...
 
[quote name='mykevermin']So it's like the Patriot Act in an .exe form?[/QUOTE]

Almost, in fact the Patriot Act is much worse. You should leave for China now if you value your personal liberties, hurry before we stop letting people leave altogether.
 
Glad to see that Krazy doesn't see any problems with personal liberties being assailed; rather, he takes issue with the form of government imposing them.

Delightfully spurious.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Glad to see that Krazy doesn't see any problems with personal liberties being assailed; rather, he takes issue with the form of government imposing them.

Delightfully spurious.[/QUOTE]
I thought we went over the whole assumptions thing.
Besides, shouldn't you be busy booking a flight?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Are you intentionally trying to contradict yourself in the span of two sentences?[/QUOTE]

I can see that you have a excellent grasp on what sarcasm is.
 
I'm pretty sure jingjing and chacha can both be used as kiddie-words for vagina...but anyway, yeah, China's doesn't like civil liberties, so why not make fun cartoon shit for it? It makes the fact that the government watches everything they do that much more fun!
 
[quote name='KrAzY3']I can see that you have a excellent grasp on what sarcasm is.[/QUOTE]

I'm aware that you're being sarcastic. You've not successfully dodged the question I asked of you: since you're so distraught about Jingjing and Chacha, are you likewise bothered by the Patriot Act and the NSA warantless spying on American citizens?

In the event that you are not, it is a logical necessity, and not an assumption, that your regard for civil liberties is entirely contingent upon the governing force behind those actions, rather than the actions themselves. With that in mind, this post is frivolous and unnecessary, since it clouds your base argument that "democracy is good, communism is bad." Why not merely make that thread instead?
 
Anyone want to DDoS the police server?

That would be awesome, for about an hour they could search for freedom, democracy, and naughty nymphos all they want.
 
mykevermin, I don't appreciate you asking such a direct question. It leaves less room for sarcasm or in the least makes it less fun.

To be frank, I was and still am offended that you would compare that two. In my mind it is like comparing raping a woman to stealing her purse. Do I condone either? No, but comparing the two is very demeaning to the people suffering under the horribly oppressive Chinese government.

In terms of the Patriot Act, I resent people making it Democrat vs. Republican thing. Politicians in general want to control me, control what I do. The Patriot Act is a touchy subject because one can easily argue they are trying to protect people (on the other hand many Chinese laws make no doubt that they are there just to keep people from expressing disagreements with the government or in some cases of just spreading simple news items that could be considered disruptive). I value my civil rights, as you well know I value my freedom of speech and for instance when the White House came out with their initial response in the cartoon issue I was not entirely pleased.

I support Republicans for the most part, not because I like them, I dislike politicians. I support Republicans because I think they want to screw me less than the Democrats. Democrats openly advocate more social programs, more taxes and things like national health care. My worst fear is of the Hillary type Democrats, which would burden me with mandatory healthcare, censor my video games and basically control me much more than I wish to be controlled. I disagree with those things and think each eats away at my liberties and in turn my civil rights as a human being. After all, I can name many pro-communist/socialist Democrats, the list of Republicans with similar sentiments is rather short. The Republicans on the other hand are far from innocent as well, and I do not argue that the Patriot Act infringes on some rights and I can not condone that. I think how we handle things has to be re-evaluated and we have to determine a way to protect ourselves from outside as well as internal threats without mistreating the common citizen. I for one can not profess to have that solution worked out as of yet.

Now, having taken the bait I will explain why I made the topic and why I preferred to stay on topic. This was a news story, so I thought it was relevant for a new topic. It was also pertinent to another discussion; I was told about how China was opening up some. Sure, they are. But that's a horrid thing to consider. The fact is that this kind of intrusion is not just commonplace but one could argue it is relatively mild for China. Oh yeah, just some little cartoon following you on your message boards, insuring you don't dare talk about the villagers being killed or anything that isn't government approved. And that is the real difference between America and China, between true oppressive regimes and America. Yes, we have our problems but things are not from the perspective of if the government allows it, but rather if the government doesn't allow it. If you consider it that difference means a lot. The other reason I made the topic was just to remind people of how things in China still are, of how hundreds of millions of people are being treated. To remind the people that forget how oppressive communist countries tend to be, what things are really like. That is why I made this topic and that is what I would prefer to discuss. I took the bait but be forewarned that I might not feel like discussing what I consider to be a different issue in this topic.
 
Jane Fonda
I suppose you wanted me to name someone like Henry Wallace though, but I never qualified it. If you want to be more current quite a few people thought the way Jimmy Carter handled the Hugo Chavez situation was questionable. In that regard, Harry Belafonte is a active Democrat who performed at many fund raisers. Michael Moore is also a person you obviously pattern yourself after, I was reading a quote from him and wasn't at all suprised to see both of you spewing the communist party line:
"You are being told that your mother died trying to bring you to freedom. I am so sorry to have to tell you, that's not true.. . . . The worst that could be said is that, in Cuba, you were in jeopardy of receiving free health care whenever you needed it, an excellent education in one of the few countries that has 100% literacy, and a better chance of your baby brother being born and making it to his first birthday than if he had been born in Washington, D.C. . . ."

Yet of course you don't support communism and neither do any Democrats.

I just knew you'd come in here and try to find one thing to pick at, while disregarding the rest of what I said. It is your way, but "methinks thou dost protest too much". You are far too quick to try and divert attention away from certain topics.
 
[quote name='KrAzY3']Jane Fonda
I suppose you wanted me to name someone like Henry Wallace though, but I never qualified it. If you want to be more current quite a few people thought the way Jimmy Carter handled the Hugo Chavez situation was questionable. In that regard, Harry Belafonte is a active Democrat who performed at many fund raisers. Michael Moore is also a person you obviously pattern yourself after, I was reading a quote from him and wasn't at all suprised to see both of you spewing the communist party line:
"You are being told that your mother died trying to bring you to freedom. I am so sorry to have to tell you, that's not true.. . . . The worst that could be said is that, in Cuba, you were in jeopardy of receiving free health care whenever you needed it, an excellent education in one of the few countries that has 100% literacy, and a better chance of your baby brother being born and making it to his first birthday than if he had been born in Washington, D.C. . . ."

Yet of course you don't support communism and neither do any Democrats.

I just knew you'd come in here and try to find one thing to pick at, while disregarding the rest of what I said. It is your way, but "methinks thou dost protest too much". You are far too quick to try and divert attention away from certain topics.[/QUOTE]

You were discussing politicans and mentioned people like hillary clinton, not political activists. If you want to discuss political activists that's a whole other discussion, since then we have to discuss people like david duke (wait, he was elected), and the whole extremist wing of the republican party that is eager to curtail various civil liberties.

Also, find where I support communism (probably the 4th time I've asked). If I patterned myself after michael more you'd actually be able to show that statements I made were wrong. The only democrat politician you mentioned was carter (wallace isn't really relevant to modern politics, but he also wasn't a communist), it would be interesting to see how you'd show carter was a communist supporter (and remember, nixon visiting china did not make nixon a communist supporter). And belafonte, fonda and moore, are activists.

But the conversation was between you and myke, which is why I only focused on the clearly erroneous part and didn't enter into the discussion directly. Though past examples of me "diverting" attention away were simply you asking two questions, me answering both, and you forgetting you had asked one of the questions and ignoring my answer to the other (ie. you thought I responded to a question you didn't ask, while ignoring the one you did).
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']since then we have to discuss people like david duke (wait, he was elected), and the whole extremist wing of the republican party that is eager to curtail various civil liberties. .[/QUOTE]

Yes, let's discussing David Duke. He ran as a Democrat in 1976, and 1988. Yes, he did in a manner of speaking run as a Republican but he did so without the support of the Republican Party. As a matter of fact he got a letter of reproval from the Republican Party. So, he was Republican in name only. But, in either case both he defamed BOTH parties certainly not just one.

You're not going to "win" the argument with me by pointing out that the Republican party has done fucked up shit. I said that myself, I just look at Democrats (members of the party and supporters of the party) and I see more of what I dislike. That's all. It is the lesser of two evils. Have you seen me here defending George Bush or anything? I haven't. I support some of his actions but he isn't my first, second or even third choice. But, I do think he's a better alternative than Kerry or Gore but that isn't saying much in my mind. And yes, once again I fell for a ploy and I'm well off subject.
 
Crazy, Duke served on the Louisiana State Legislature as a Republican.

When he ran as a Democrat he went nowhere, when he became a Republican enough Republicans voted for him to get elected.

If you want to call that a wash then I must question your critical thinking skills.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Crazy, Duke served on the Louisiana State Legislature.

As a Republican, enough Republicans voted for him to get elected.[/QUOTE]

Enough people voted for him to get elected. I don't know how many registered Republicans voted for him and even so winning 51/49, while still horrible is hardly a big condemnation of the party as a whole. My point is that the guy ran for office as a Democrat and Republican and as a third party candidate. Over the courst of two years he ran as the Democrat, Populist and Republican.

Also, George H. and Reagan came out in support of his opposition, so it is hard to argue that it was the party faithfull that voted for him.

Anyway, if we're just mudslinging now:

Robert Byrd
 
Robert Byrd was a recruiter for the KKK.
And is still a sitting Democratic Congressman.

We can play this game all you want.
 
Duke was succesfull as a republican, not as a democrat. Robert Byrd was a klansman in the 40's, and has repeatedly denounced his past. Even one recent controversy, his use of "white niger", while a horrendous use of terms, was an attack on racist whites. Whether he holds racist views or not, he no longer advocates them and his votes no longer reflect racist viewpoints. He does not bring racism to the senate, the same can not be said of duke (if he was a senator). And, in fact, the NAACP (as well as the black caucus) has approved of byrd's voting record, giving him a 100% rating in issues of civil rights recently.

But, going back to all the points you ignored, you have not shown that any democrat politicians are communist supporters, let alone any democrat in congress. And, for the 5th time, how am I a communist supporter? You repeatedly make statements to that effect but don't even attempt to defend it. Most recently, after giving examples of supposed communists who are (unelected) democrats, you end with sarcastically saying "Yet of course you don't support communism and neither do any Democrats", while just a few sentences earlier accuse me of spewing the communist party line.

I've been accused of being many negative things both here and in real life, you can either be the first and actually back up such a claim, or you can be like everyone else who accuses me of something without being able to support it.
 
[quote name='KrAzY3']I support Republicans because I think they want to screw me less than the Democrats.[/QUOTE]

Yet you are still being screwed. Why support Democrats or Republicans if they are screwing you? (unless you like that sort of thing)
 
AM23, you and many Democrats advocate the redistribution of wealth. That is the foundation of communism. The entire, "increase taxes on the wealthy" (when they already pay more both percentage wise as well as in totall) aspect aligns itself with one of the basic tenant of communism. Not only that, but it seems every time I see a communist country being defended, it happens to be someone that also supports Democrats. As I said, Harry Belafonte is a longtime Democrat supporter. He has also expressed his support for Huge Chavez. Jane Fonda expressed her support for the communist Vietnamese regime. Very few Democrats that I have engaged in conversation with haven't either advocated the redistribution of wealth or expressed fondness for the activities of various communist countries much like you and Moore sang the praises of Cuba. Hell, even Elders, appointed by a Democrat said she wanted the US healthcare system to be like Cuba's. So yeah, I keep hearing Democrats and their supporters saying they want things more like communism and I arrive to the conclusion that they do indeed support communism. Perhaps they are not even aware, but once again it goes back to the "walks like a duck, quacks like a duck" saying.

elprincipe, I'm a Libertarian/Republican hybrid. I suppose you could call me a South Park Republican. As they said, they don't like Republicans they just hate liberals more (mind you, I try to qualify it as leftist-liberal, I technically am a social liberal although my politics are far from the left). Allow me take you back to the Kerry vs. Bush debates. Bear in mind that I am not here to try to discuss who was whose favorite, I'm explaining my interpretation and reaction.

During the debates, Kerry repeatedly advocated national health care and increased taxes to pay for it. Now, I have made it clear I currently do not have health care BY CHOICE. Why is that? I haven't been to a hospital in 15 years. I made the personal choice that I would rather spend the money as I see fit. Some might look at me and think that is stupid. I might look at someone riding a motorcycle and think they are stupid. That's how freedom works. It includes the freedom to be stupid. If Kerry had his way, I would would paying into and/or a part of a national health care plan regardless of my wishes. Much like people have been forced into social security whether or not they want to be a part.

As far as social security goes, Bush has made it clear and has come under attack for wanting to give private alternatives. Social Security was poorly built (as many social programs are) and it is clearly showing its weakness. Not only that, but I reject the fundamental idea. Why should I HAVE to pay into something whether or not I want to be a part of it? On this regard Democrats have made their stances clear. Don't touch it! Or, take Bush's stance on public schools. He also repeatedly said he wanted things like public school credits, letting people have a choice in what school their child goes to. Well, once again good for him. CHOICE! I like it, seriously. If you are going to force everyone into paying for public schools you can at least introduce choice. Of course once again the Democrats don't want to allow choice in this matter.

Time and time again the Democrats come out for more social programs and more taxes. The end result is less freedom for me. I pay more taxes, I get forced into contributing and/or being a part of these programs against my wishes. That's infringing on my rights and freedoms. Republicans? Sure, they dick me to as I said. But from my viewpoint they want to dick me less, control me less. Patriot Act? I haven't seen any real proof that if Kerry was in power he would handle it differently. Warrantless activities? As I pointed out before Carter, Reagan and Clinton all defended their "right" to do it. So, I can find numerous points in which I agree more with the Republicans and the Democrats run in direct opposition to my values. While, on the other hand I can't find many examples of issues I side with the Democrats on, over the Republicans.

I don't really support the Libertarian party because it is both too idealistic and too weak. I would rather try to support the Libertarian type Republicans and support Republicans over their Democratic opponents because I see it as a lesser of two evils. Hey look, I'm going to get screwed. A politician is going to get elected, I'm just asking to get screwed less. That's the reality is politics. Democracy has been compared to three wolves and a sheep voting on what's for lunch. It has its vulnerabilities, politicians tend to abuse their power but it is still the best system around.
 
[quote name='KrAzY3']AM23, you and many Democrats advocate the redistribution of wealth. That is the foundation of communism. The entire, "increase taxes on the wealthy" (when they already pay more both percentage wise as well as in totall) aspect aligns itself with one of the basic tenant of communism. Not only that, but it seems every time I see a communist country being defended, it happens to be someone that also supports Democrats. As I said, Harry Belafonte is a longtime Democrat supporter. He has also expressed his support for Huge Chavez. Jane Fonda expressed her support for the communist Vietnamese regime. Very few Democrats that I have engaged in conversation with haven't either advocated the redistribution of wealth or expressed fondness for the activities of various communist countries much like you and Moore sang the praises of Cuba. Hell, even Elders, appointed by a Democrat said she wanted the US healthcare system to be like Cuba's. So yeah, I keep hearing Democrats and their supporters saying they want things more like communism and I arrive to the conclusion that they do indeed support communism. Perhaps they are not even aware, but once again it goes back to the "walks like a duck, quacks like a duck" saying.[/QUOTE]
Except, you're wrong. Redistribution of wealth (at a MUCH larger scale than the democrats ever envision or plan) may be a tenet of communism, but isn't communism in and of itself. A singular leader and dictator is a tenet of communism, and we see many of the neo-conservatives trying to give more and more power to the presidency, pushing it further towards dictator than we could ever want. Are you about to call conservatives communists?

Just because a group exhibits a trait that is sort of similar to another group does not mean they are one and the same.
 
[quote name='kakomu']A singular leader and dictator is a tenet of communism.[/QUOTE]

That is not entirely correct. Marx refers to "dictatorship of the proletariat which is a government organized for the defense of survival "rights.". He considered government to be dictatorships, and he wished to strengthen them to avoid corruption. To consider it a tenet of communism is in the very least misleading since it was not the basis of his teachings and totalitarianism is not inherently tied to communism.

According to Marx, socialism is a stage on the way to communism. Marx's teachings centered around the rise of the proletariat. Allow me to quote a Maoist site: "Under communism, according to Marx, the government disappears and there is economic cooperation as well. The principle of distribution becomes "from each according to his/her ability, to each according to his/her need."

You can clearly see that the end goal is communism has nothing at all to do with dictatorships but does have everything to do with redistribution of wealth.

Also, there is a reason that AM23 only questioned my reference to communism when I said:
[quote name='KrAzY3']pro-communist/socialist[/QUOTE]
Leftists: "Denounce the of economic and social inequality in the present order of society. Common political paths include socialism , communism , social democracy, welfare statism..."

Leftists are quite often socialist/communist (I combined them for a reason!!). They have Marxist ideals and the end game for a Marxist is communism and the abolition of government! Most socialists do not want this extreme consequence but they do in fact follow the path to communism, just not all the way. They do not like the label, yet they practice the principles.
 
What you're doing is playing the dichotomy game that any attempt to redistribute wealth equals communism.

What you're ignoring is the growing wealth gap between the rich and poor in this nation. If you want to ignore that, it's certainly your right to do so, but don't forget to recognize that two can play the slippery slope game. If you do some research on black farm laborers in the antebellum civil war period, you'll find that, although they were participants in the "free market," their role was little more than an indentured servant; they were indebted to their landowner because they made too little money to pay off their annually-increasing debts. In the meantime, the share of the profit that the plantation owner made was enormous. He paid the slave just enough to make it look as if the free black man was a willing participant in the free market, and just enough to make his cost of running the plantation incrementally more than when they were slaves.

With that in mind, if you allow pure free-market capitalism to continue to its logical endpoint, what you have is what you see in our current economy: the upper classes (probably the top 5%-10%) have seen their annual income double since 1997, and the top 5 execs at 1,500 top publicly traded corporations take in 9.8% of the *entire* company's net profit. OTOH, the median income in the United States has fluctuated up and down somewhat, but as "real wages," has stayed the same since 1990 or earlier. In those 16 years, the cost of goods has gone up considerably; the logical conclusion of that is this: 50% of Americans, at the very least, have less money to spend than they did 16 years ago.

Now, if you keep that in mind, and consider the political power and influence of the modern corporation, and compare that to a cultural era where we believe that workers' wages are a bad thing (as we laud Wal-Mart's practices, and believe that neither Wal-Mart, nor the state, should pay for medical care, instead placing the burden on a person making $8/hour), do you really think we are prepared for widespread wage increases? Your capitalism would place us in indentured servitude at its logical end, due to your blind allegiance to the pursuit of profit.

Why should I HAVE to pay into something whether or not I want to be a part of it?
Click to expand...

Because you are a citizen of a nation of individuals. This isn't a free-for-all democracy, but, rather, a "take a penny, leave a penny one." If you're upset because you feel like some people take too many, or some are forced to leave too many, then I'd recommend you go get a job where you won't be taxed at all. Right about $19K a year or less; that's happiness!
 
[quote name='KrAzY3']That is not entirely correct. Marx refers to "dictatorship of the proletariat which is a government organized for the defense of survival "rights.". He considered government to be dictatorships, and he wished to strengthen them to avoid corruption. To consider it a tenet of communism is in the very least misleading since it was not the basis of his teachings and totalitarianism is not inherently tied to communism.

According to Marx, socialism is a stage on the way to communism. Marx's teachings centered around the rise of the proletariat. Allow me to quote a Maoist site: "Under communism, according to Marx, the government disappears and there is economic cooperation as well. The principle of distribution becomes "from each according to his/her ability, to each according to his/her need."

You can clearly see that the end goal is communism has nothing at all to do with dictatorships but does have everything to do with redistribution of wealth.

Also, there is a reason that AM23 only questioned my reference to communism when I said:

Leftists: "Denounce the of economic and social inequality in the present order of society. Common political paths include socialism , communism , social democracy, welfare statism..."

Leftists are quite often socialist/communist (I combined them for a reason!!). They have Marxist ideals and the end game for a Marxist is communism and the abolition of government! Most socialists do not want this extreme consequence but they do in fact follow the path to communism, just not all the way. They do not like the label, yet they practice the principles.[/QUOTE]
No, you're wrong, COmmunism isn't all about redistribution of wealth. If you had actually read any marx, you'd realize that he seemed to rarely talk about the ends, let alone the redistro of wealth. However, I'm going to assume you've never read the communist manifesto, and don't really know that much about Marx.
 
I was reading the manifesto today. Besides, I quoted Marx's goal, it is pretty easy to understand and fairly damned hard to miss. If you wish to ignore something so easy to understand then fine. All work is of equal value hypothetically under both socialism and communism. That is the basis of it and its primary weakness as well. If two people make a cake, with the same ingredients and the same amount of effort one could still make a much better cake. Communism seeks to reward both equally, which is rather absurd. Even the arguments I hear here mirror that. Oh, they don't need the extra money. Sure, they don't need it but they earned it. The best chefs make millions while many of the worst make minimum wage. So, to argue that you should take the money from the best chef and give it to the worse is not only ridiculous but creating a system that doesn't reward true skill and rewards effort instead.

I am disheartened by the response in this thread but suffice it to say that you guys are why I support Republicans. Because if they fall from power people like you will be in power. It is a waste of my time to argue, you guys obviously know how you feel about the subject and obviously have no reservations about the implications of your actions. Arguing with you about it is a waste of both our times. Here's a thread in which I am pointing out how horribly the Chinese are being treated and a grand total of one person has expressed any sort of dissatisfaction with that. I'm so proud of you all...
 
[quote name='KrAzY3']I was reading the manifesto today. Besides, I quoted Marx's goal, it is pretty easy to understand and fairly damned hard to miss. If you wish to ignore something so easy to understand then fine. All work is of equal value hypothetically under both socialism and communism. That is the basis of it and its primary weakness as well. If two people make a cake, with the same ingredients and the same amount of effort one could still make a much better cake. Communism seeks to reward both equally, which is rather absurd. Even the arguments I hear here mirror that. Oh, they don't need the extra money. Sure, they don't need it but they earned it. The best chefs make millions while many of the worst make minimum wage. So, to argue that you should take the money from the best chef and give it to the worse is not only ridiculous but creating a system that doesn't reward true skill and rewards effort instead.

I am disheartened by the response in this thread but suffice it to say that you guys are why I support Republicans. Because if they fall from power people like you will be in power. It is a waste of my time to argue, you guys obviously know how you feel about the subject and obviously have no reservations about the implications of your actions. Arguing with you about it is a waste of both our times. Here's a thread in which I am pointing out how horribly the Chinese are being treated and a grand total of one person has expressed any sort of dissatisfaction with that. I'm so proud of you all...[/QUOTE]
THe problem is your demonization of a group characterized by a slight characteristic that sorta resembles a characteristic of socialism...if you put it in the right light.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Marx wrote about ending child labor.

Now do you support chaining toddlers to looms or are you a Commie?[/QUOTE]

I said I'm done with you guys. It is obvious that you embrace or in the least defend leftist ideals and socialism which is nothing more than a lesser form of communism. If I saw some common ground, some moderation it would be worth my time but it is not. I suppose I will just again quote the end goal of communism, which both Marxists and Maoists agree on:
[quote name='KrAzY3'] "Under communism, according to Marx, the government disappears and there is economic cooperation as well. The principle of distribution becomes "from each according to his/her ability, to each according to his/her need."[/QUOTE]

That is it, that is the communist goal in its most basic form. You can keep trying to add and subtract but that's it. Your continued defense of Marxism, socialism, China, Cuba, redistribution of wealth, etc... only further exposes your sentiments. What is left to debate? I'm done, if I make a topic I suppose I'm best off leaving it be because far too many of you will only seek to divert attention from it and launch into convoluted arguments which defend something you guys tend to claim not to support.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Am I fuckin' invisible today or something?[/QUOTE]

Heh, well for the record your response was the most reasoned. To be quite frank though, I do not have the time to conduct four or so different conversations in a given thread. Between AM23's plucking a single sentence out of each thing I post, Msut77's obtuse one sentence posts and the ravings of someone that used to go by "Capitalist_mao" I hardly consider it worthwhile to continue. If I was to type a response to you, AM23 would take exception to part of one sentence, Msut77 would no doubt point out something like the in fact Hitler was a artist and kakomu would say something as addled as his former username. If I wasn't so susceptible to being lead off topic I could give you a deserving response but I must confess I'm not and without the chance for linear discussion I suppose my best form of communication would be via posting new items or being more selective with my posts rather than sinking into non-linear debates of which I lack both the time and focus to participate in properly.
 
[quote name='KrAzY3']Heh, well for the record your response was the most reasoned. To be quite frank though, I do not have the time to conduct four or so different conversations in a given thread. Between AM23's plucking a single sentence out of each thing I post, Msut77's obtuse one sentence posts and the ravings of someone that used to go by "Capitalist_mao" I hardly consider it worthwhile to continue. If I was to type a response to you, AM23 would take exception to part of one sentence, Msut77 would no doubt point out something like the in fact Hitler was a artist and kakomu would say something as addled as his former username. If I wasn't so susceptible to being lead off topic I could give you a deserving response but I must confess I'm not and without the chance for linear discussion I suppose my best form of communication would be via posting new items or being more selective with my posts rather than sinking into non-linear debates of which I lack both the time and focus to participate in properly.[/QUOTE]
What does my username have to do with my political views? You're getting just as bad as PAD in that respect. However, I guess you're also the type of person to select exactly what he wants to see. You see "mao", but ignore "capitalist". It's obvious if someone is mao, even if they're a capitalist, they're a communist, right?:roll:

Marx's Communist books were about ending the bourgeoise, uprising against users and utilitarianists (ie Locke) and other such ideals. He felt the lower class was downtrodden and that they were being used by the upper class. His ideas about the communal aspects were seen as the ends to his views, not necessarily the views themselves. Had you read a large portion of the communist manifesto, you'd see that he devotes most of his time in the articles talking about the prolitariat as they stood and the ways they could actively rise against the upper classes.

Of course, I'm sure you're also the type of person who sees labor laws and unions as evil. Strip them all away so that the businesses can make as much money as possible, rather than the workers themselves.:roll:
 
Ya know, I completely understand the viewpoint that people don't want to be forced to pay for things that they don't want to. But I think that the rich paying more taxes makes perfect sense as well.

If someone makes $10 million a year and is taxed $9 million (I know it's not really that high) I can't say I feel sorry for the poor guy making a million a year. He can obviously afford to live freely. Add to that the fact that nobody makes that much money without the help of others and most likely many workers who are paid a much lower amount than that. So I can also understand the angle that the further left-leaning people are coming from.

It seems to me that there's a choice in that: do we want the best for the individual or the best for the society? I have to go with the society and that leads to leftist ideals.

It seems to me that the markets used to be more free and unregulated and shit was pretty bad for most people and that's why the regulations were put in place.

And as far as free choice in public schools goes, (as an example, any similar institution will basically be the same) I can't see that turning into anything more than segregation. Unless everyone has free choice (and if the schools are private and not affordable to everyone, they don't have free choice, only the illusion of it) or noone does, then the rich will have the better funded schools and the poor will have the worse funded ones. They will then be further separated when the poor are never educated to better themselves.

This is all my opinion of course and I'm open to civil discussion, so correct me where I'm wrong, but don't just tell me I'm wrong and a commie, really correct me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top