Trial against jeiro

For some reaon I cannot make a poll...o.O?

calinis wrote:

You seem to be convinced that there are human rights violations there. If it will take awhile to change their human rights, why do you want to move there? Wouldn't you want to move to a country that values human life a little bit more? I find it highly ironic that you support a country that is more concerned about profits than the US that they would put led in children's toys because it's cheap. At least in the US, there's regulation against that kind of stuff....

Okay go ahead and move there and enjoy the censorship there and it's oh-so great government....

That's what the West says. And child labor is in China for the SAME reason it is in India. They support families and all whatnot. Sure, it IS a sad thing to see that, but they HAVE NO CHOICE.

China concered about profits? lolwut? I find that highly questionable since the government has offered jobs to everybody and the government is trying it's best to oversee the qaulity. Unlike your socalled "Free America", China has room to improve yeah, but AT LEAST they are DOING IT at their own pace. Unlike you disgusting arrogant Amis, who would LOVE to nuke China to bring your so-called "freedom", the Chinese do things whenever they feel like it is best FOR THEMSELVES. Unlike your ugly crime ridden "Free America", China's crime rates are LOW compared to America's. Some 100ish arrests compared to 700. And America's prisons are overcrowded because of arrests in druggies, while rapists and murderers go free.

Who is the police state now? Mmmyeshhh?

And NO, I did NOT get that from the Chinese government. I researched from a study done indepently.

LOL, you call China a bad country, yet you do not even take note of just how MUCH America controls it's markets everywhere over the world. You fail again.

Living in China would be gold compared to America. At least China admits to wrongdoings at times, MUCH LESS GREAT NATIONALIST AMERIKKKA, eh?! Instead of acting as world police Nazis, focus on your OWN problems first, like the poverty issue in America. 10% of America children go hungry everyday and yet, you claim America is free? Bull fucking SHIT.

Human rights in China awful? LOL, then TELL ME WHY THEY HAVE OVER 1.3 BILLION PEOPLE LIVING RIGHT NOW?!

PWN.

ANYWAYS! LET MY TRIAL CONTINUE! JUST CUZ I AM AGAINST THE WEST AND THAR JEWISH ALLIES MUST MEAN I AM AN EVILDOER PERSON! AIMRITE?!

LAWLS! I SHALL STAND! AND EVEN IF I AM TO PASS, I SHALL BRING /B/ TO THE PEOPLE ONCE MORE!!!

FOR TEH LULLLLLZZZ!!!

Jeiro Sijakeuigwan wrote:

Who is the police state now? Mmmyeshhh?
.

still china

Go to China then. I dont care. In fact I dont want you living in the US. How is a country that allows freedom of speech etc a 'police state"? Do I see BigBrother watching me willing to arrest me for thought crimes? In case you haven't noticed, you're free to express your opinion. Like right now you say how much you hate America. Why exactly has the FBI not tracked your IP down and send agents down to your house to arrest you for a political crimes? In America, there is a Communist Party. Hell, there's even a Nazi Party, not that I agree with its existance, but it shows the reality of freedom here (although one would argue, to the extent that it causes harm to certain groups).

Wait, are you saying they DONT arrest drug users there? Hence another reason why it's terrible.....
But go ahead, leave the crappy country you reside it, go to China, you might not be able to access a few sites because of the censorship there.

Poverty issues in the US do not surpass that in China, where a small minority is poor in the US (and even the poor live in better conditions). Want out of poverty? Go to college, get a good job and wow, you're RICH!!! That's what I like in America. There's economic freedom, and hence personal freedom.

Hey Jeiro are you sure you're not homosexual? Cuz you sure as hell sound like it.

calinis wrote:

Zealot:

How many times must I say this? Nobody's trial should be interrupted by other cases. If I ask someone's opinion on Bob, will responses saying "well Jon killed more...." be valid? It makes it seem like the people Jon killed are suddenly more important, when all the people killed are equal.

When judging Bob it's perfectly valid to say that he is being given an excessive attention. There's no statement that Jon's victims are more important, is just a critique towards excess attention to Bob.

calinis wrote:

I would question why anyone would want to live under Russia's rule. If the US wanted to annex Canada, would you see that as imperalist? I mean a bunch of Canadians are dual-citizens so CLEARLY they want that.

"Under Russia's Rule" what do you mean by that? Oh and did you know that South Ossetians are also dual-citizens?

calinis wrote:

Say there is genocide going on in part of southern Canada against a majority of a specific ethnic group that lives primarly in that region (like the Chinese who seem to populate southern BC), and the US sends "peacekeeping" forces, a primary objective to increase their imperal empire, would this be justified? Should the US annex that part of Canada or should be left as an independant state? Say these people have a different culture, etc, and their culture is not tolerated in Canada. Say the American government is fascist (obviously its not). Should America annex part of Canada?

Imagine those chinese as you call them are as well US citizens, yes US's action would be justified (strange thing) because they'd be protecting an endangered people prone to genocide.

But hey, this paralelism is unnecesary, this is a very different situation, and many of your statements were completely uncallwed for.

calinis wrote:

Wanting to kill all capitalists is absolutely disgusting. Contrary to popular leftist belief, not all capitalists are scum who exploit their labour and only care about profits. Some just own the "means of production". That in tself doesnt make them bad. I dont support a communist revolution, would you kill ME???

I know not all capitalists are scum. As I said capitalists by conviction who adore the capitalist system who enjoy unequalty who enjoy to be above others.

Imagine there was a communist revolution, and it succeeds, what would you do?

a) Work hard but protest against socialism: I woldn't kill you.
b) Don't work and protest: I'd put you to forced labour.
c) Work and Sabotage: I'd send you to a gulag.
d) Organize reactionay militia: Kill you.
e)... depends on your answer.

Zealot:

Jeiro hardly toutched on the victims of Hitler's genocide. He just said that he was kinda bad....but not really because there have been other events in history that, because they were so bad, would forgive what he did....
He didn't even have the slighest sense of empathy. His judgement was clouded because of other things that he thinks were worse. When we look at atrocities, it should be a case by case study and we shouldn't foget the victims who perished, but if you bring up something else that happened when talking about one event, it DOES make it seem like the victims of one event were more important than another. I dont know how to explain to you that the victims were just as important as other victims. Perhaps I would not haveeven brought this up if it seemed that he cared, but nowhere in his posts has he mentioned anything above how the Holocaust gets too much attention.

I actually consider the situation similar to the conflict, from my understanding. There is a part of a country that wants to seperate from their country, but the country is against the seperation of part of it and then the neighbour comes and annex's the part of the country that wants to be seperate, even though they would not like to be part of a Fascist country who only uses this as an excuse to expand their empire. I say let S. Ossetia be indepenant. If they want to have Russian culture, i say let them, but I do not support them being part of imperalist Russia.

If there was a communist revolution and in the successive communist society, people are poor as hell, there is no religion under commmunism and religious people are persucuted, teachers brainwash their students into thinking communism is great, etc etc, there is no morality and I want to be rich, so yes I will try to fight back to bring me and my family the prosperity that was evident under a market economy. And you're going to kill me for that?

calnis, were not saying you have to agree just that you need to keep out of arguments were every one is against you, when something like this happens study as much as you can about the topic, maybe you will learn why every one disagrees with you.

calinis wrote:

Zealot:

....if you bring up something else that happened when talking about one event, it DOES make it seem like the victims of one event were more important than another. I dont know how to explain to you that the victims were just as important as other victims. Perhaps I would not ...

He doesn't have to bring it. He just commented that the genocide in Europe has been given already enough attention. It is a perfectly contextual statement and IN NO WAY DOES IT QUALIFY AS NAZI-SYMPATHIZING which is what you accuse Jeiro of. Period. You got nothing with which you can back up your statement. One more mention of it and it will be clear that you're just a trawl. You keep repeating over and over the same thing without arguements.

calinis wrote:

I actually consider the situation similar to the conflict, from my understanding. There is a part of a country that wants to seperate from their country, but the country is against the seperation of part of it and then the neighbour comes and annex's the part of the country that wants to be seperate, even though they would not like to be part of a Fascist country who only uses this as an excuse to expand their empire. I say let S. Ossetia be indepenant. If they want to have Russian culture, i say let them, but I do not support them being part of imperalist Russia.

You really seem not to know the meaning of annexation. Did you know South Ossetia is not governed by Russia? Were you aware of that? It's evident that you weren't. Research and then speak. The only thing Russians are doing in Georgia is preventing Georgians to attack South Ossetians again. Plain and simple.

calinis wrote:

If there was a communist revolution and in the successive communist society, people are poor as hell,

Define poor. In a communist society poverty is impossible unless resources and/or technical knowledge are scarce.

calinis wrote:

there is no religion under commmunism and religious people are persucuted,

Only religious institutionalism is prosecuted and forbiden for your information.

calinis wrote:

teachers brainwash their students into thinking communism is great, etc etc,

Communism promotes critical thought since it actually thrives on that. Therefore people are fomented to be objective. If there's no critical though, and objectivism communism is not present.

calinis wrote:

there is no morality

If there's no morality, there's no communism.

calinis wrote:

and I want to be rich,

The only possible thing. Yeah communism doesn't allow you to amass material fortunes if that's what you mean.

calinis wrote:

so yes I will try to fight back to bring me and my family the prosperity that was evident under a market economy. And you're going to kill me for that?

Since all you want to do is to be rich on the expense of others and are eager to fight for that, then I guess I'd have to force you to die fighting.

NO BECAUSE ITS NOT RELAVENT!!!!!!!!!!!! THIS WAS WHAT HAPPENED BASICALLY. A THREAD REGARDING THE HYPOTHETICAL PUNISHMENT OF HITLER WAS MADE AND JEIRO COMPLETELY DID A 360 FLIP TALKING ABOUT THINGS WHEN IT WAS NOT RELAVENT.

yes I know Russia does not currently control S. Ossetia, but they want to. Like I said, they want to expand their empire and use this as an excuse to send peacekeeping forces. Stop patronizing me, dumbass.

People will be poor under communism because resources will be not allocated effeciently under a command economy since the economy will not be guided by the forces of supply and demand, but instead have a central planning commitee that do not know what individuals want because there are no prices. Case in point: the USSR. People had to wait in long lines just to get things like toliet paper.

Nope, under communism, religion is banned and those who practice it are arrested. Case in point: the USSR. Lenin, Stalin, and Khruschev were all anti-religion.

Nope, under communism, people are feed propoganda in order to avoid them becoming counterrevolutionaries.

Nope, communism is the anti-thesis of morality. Also traditional values will be eliminated.

Well I want to be rich. Under communism my dream wont come true. I want to own a huge corporation because I like being in authority.

I also dont like communism because of things I've mentioned. As a Christian, I advocate morality. A revolution to dismiss the status quo is completely selfish because you do not seem to consider what some of the people want.

Forgot to add this.

Liche:

I am simply adding my opinion and the fact that I consider these people heavily immoral. Sorry, I kinda need to respond when people make offensive comments....

Calling us Immoral just becous we don't share your views, is just such a US way - next time say were immoral becous we believe in evolution - like 75% of the American pamphlet-reciting fucktards.

Look, case rested - nobody, not even the forum Jews seams to be offended by Jeri, the only one that's aparently butthurt here is you - the same person that was so passionately scanting that Arabs and Muslims aren't people and should be looked down on, ironically enough Arabs are also semits...

No, I say you're all immoral if you do not condemn genocide which you clearly dont. And Zealot said he would kill me because I want to get rich.

I'm offended by Jerio. Should MY opinion not count? btw I never said Muslims should be sent to concentration camps. i just dont like their religion, is all.

You honestly believe that Anti-semiticsm applies only then when you send semits to death camps? What sort of Intellectual bankruptcy is that?
Again I didn't see any statement from zealot that implies he will kill you just becous you want to get rich... misinterpretation or strawman fallacy.

calinis wrote:

NO BECAUSE ITS NOT RELAVENT!!!!!!!!!!!! THIS WAS WHAT HAPPENED BASICALLY. A THREAD REGARDING THE HYPOTHETICAL PUNISHMENT OF HITLER WAS MADE AND JEIRO COMPLETELY DID A 360 FLIP TALKING ABOUT THINGS WHEN IT WAS NOT RELAVENT.

Your arguement is that Jeiro is a Nazi-sympathizer while he simply excerted his opoinion that Hitler had already been given enough attention while other genocides had been nearly unattended.

calinis wrote:

yes I know Russia does not currently control S. Ossetia, but they want to. Like I said, they want to expand their empire and use this as an excuse to send peacekeeping forces. Stop patronizing me, dumbass.

Does not currently control it, nor it wishes to. You accuse Russia of wanting to expand an imaginary empire (like if Russia had one) and are saying that Russians use that as an excuse to send peacekeeping forces... Forst of all you didn't organise your arguement properly: By what you said you're STATING that Russia is justifying its intervention in South Ossetia because it wants to make an empire... can you notice how absurd your statement is? Is like if Medvedev had said "Ok world community, we want to expand our empire that's why we sent peacekeeping forces". Didn't you mean it the other way around?

And not. South Ossetia is acting like a defacto unrecognized independent republic protected by Russia, that's how it is acting.

Stop making suppositions and presenting them as staements before they happen, and again see both sides of the coin.

And if you're so bothered at imperialist actions look at US. Iraq did nothing to US, was invaded by US without any provocation based on pure lies. The government (indirectly put there by US) was toppled, people have been massacred, US controls a share of Iraq and has got a whole coallition to help them in the conquest. That is reprobable.
But well, why feeding a troll huh?

calinis wrote:

People will be poor under communism because resources will be not allocated effeciently under a command economy since the economy will not be guided by the forces of supply and demand, but instead have a central planning commitee that do not know what individuals want because there are no prices.

So you're arguing that lack of prices do not allow a governing entity to know what people want (are you out of your mind?). You're as well asserting that it is impossible to properly allocate resources because of lack of supply and demand, right?

Communism distributes resources according to need while production is made according to capacity. Capacity always surpasses need so, as long as there are resources and technical knowledge, need will always be able to be satisfied. The distribution of goods will be made by scientific planning given the circumstances of people. That way it will be impossible for someone who will just eat 1kg of meat to have 10 and the one that needs 1.5kg to have just .5.

calinis wrote:

Case in point: the USSR. People had to wait in long lines just to get things like toliet paper.

You fail to understand USSR was not communist even after all the arguements to back tha statement up.

That was socialst state capitalism, a contradictiry system. And even such scenarios appeared just during USSR's economic crisises which were mainly derivate of a mixture of the system's contradictory nature and over expenditure in non-profitable enterprising.

calinis wrote:

Nope, under communism, religion is banned and those who practice it are arrested. Case in point: the USSR. Lenin, Stalin, and Khruschev were all anti-religion.

Again, USSR wasn't ommunist and religion was not banned. It was just thouroughly controlled and attacked by the scholar system, but you were allowed to practise your religion be it Christianity, Judaism or Islam all of them present in USSR. But that's the USSR, not comunism.

calinis wrote:

Nope, under communism, people are feed propoganda in order to avoid them becoming counterrevolutionaries.

You have never seen communism so you can't make that affirmation. Else, if people's conditions foment discontent, people will be rebellious.

calinis wrote:

Nope, communism is the anti-thesis of morality. Also traditional values will be eliminated.

Well, well, well and you think just stating it makes it true? You just state it is and don't say why. You don't even know what communism is.

We communists promote love to work, to others, to our surroundings, respect for life, love for culture, for knowledge, we promote people's individual freedoms... how can all that be immoral?

calinis wrote:

Well I want to be rich. Under communism my dream wont come true. I want to own a huge corporation because I like being in authority.

So stop all the morality and goodwill bable when all you are is nothing but a plutocrat. All you want is material wealth and power over others. Plain and simple. Yeah comunism won't allow you that at all.

calinis wrote:

I also dont like communism because of things I've mentioned. As a Christian, I advocate morality.

Redundance doesn't strengthen your arguement.

calinis wrote:

A revolution to dismiss the status quo is completely selfish because you do not seem to consider what some of the people want.

If I'm for the will of the 80% and 10% will forcibly second us, I don't care about crushing the will of 10%, of a selfish 10%.

Cyprian:

Why are you attacking me? I'm not anti-semetic. Jeiro is. Ask him. And yes Zealot did say he wants to kill me because I want to get rich....

Zealot:

So this is Jeiro's logic: "well Hitler was kind of a jerk I guess, BUT look at what the Japanese did. Clearly they were WORSE, thus a lighter sentence would fit Hitler". These events should not be dependant upon each other.

Yes they want to control S. Ossetia. Please explain why they, a corrupt government, would want to HELP them? Oh yeah, so they can get a piece of terrority.....
And Saddam was having a genocide there and there was a possibility of WMD (I know this eventually turned out to be wrong, but it wasn't just made up with the US. US, British, and Russian intelligence found it to be true. I dont know what failed them), and if there was a possibility that an evil dictator controlled powerful weapons, wouldn't you want to protect yourself?

The government cannot know what people want because there are no prices to show this. Say the government decides to put their effort into making computers, but it turns out people demand refridgerators instead. At least under a market economy, people's decisions infleunce the prices and the prices infleunce what should be produced according to people's needs. How can we tell the scarcity of items without having a price system?

The toliet paper scanerio is the inevitable result of a planned economy; people wont get what they need. I used the USSR as an example because, although it wasn't communist, it certainly wasnt capitalist. From what I understand, this was prominent.

Nope, religion was banned. It was an atheist state and people who practiced religion were sent to the Gulags. I remember there was this whole anti-religious demonstration during the Khruschev-esque era, but I dont remember the details. I'll look it up later.

I know people would be brainwashed because the conditions would be so horrible that they would have to tell people they are good in order to avoid counterrevolutionary activities. They did this in Nazi Germany, in the USSR, formally in China, in Cuba, and in North Korea. It is an effective way to control a population that is discontent.

Nope, communism breeds immorality because of the basic structure. For one, it takes the heard-earned money from the rich and distributes it to the people who dont deserve it. The excessive control that the government has on the economy would certainly spread to personal matters. The more control the government has on the economy, the less free the people. Hence the reason why dictatorships are inevitable in a communist society. Silencing oppostion is immoral. Killing people because they want to be rich is immoral. You seem very much like Stalin.....this and your support for imperalism. Stalin was an imperalist too, you know.

Material wealth is not the only thing I want, but it would be nice. I want freedom and that is what capitalism brings. I do not want to be arrested for expressing my opinion or for practicing my religion. The people who do not want revolution are not selfish; the people that DO want revolution are selfish.

Because you want change it makes you selfish?

The whole idea of distrubuting resources equally, when not all people have equal skills and abilities, is theft to those who worked hard. It is selfish to advocate this when some people have money and you do not. Change is only warranted if the status quo is oppressive. Like if we lived in a world with no rights, I would wholey support the destruction of such a system. But I see no correlation. The way things are, with small exceptions, is good.

Plus Zealot wants to kill me just for being rich. Is this immoral?

Jerio is a good guy

calinis wrote:

Zealot:

So this is Jeiro's logic: "well Hitler was kind of a jerk I guess, BUT look at what the Japanese did. Clearly they were WORSE, thus a lighter sentence would fit Hitler". These events should not be dependant upon each other.

He's implying that Hitler's already been given too much attention fundamenting that comment with the fact that there are other unattended crimes. That's perfectly contextual and even if it wasn't destroys your thesis that Jeiro is a Nazi-Simpathizer. So the ACCUSATION is DROPPED.

And now you accuse Jeiro of being antisemitic? On which grounds? I'll trial you on difamation if you can't sustain that.

------------------------
From this point the discussion is growing highly OFF-Topic.

calinis wrote:

Yes they want to control S. Ossetia. Please explain why they, a corrupt government, would want to HELP them? Oh yeah, so they can get a piece of terrority.....

You say they want to control South Ossetia with no evidence whatsover and without arguements... Your logic is "a corrupt government can't help a country out of mere goodwill". You don't state what makes them corrupt nor how that impacts on their international relations and moreover TOTALLY DISREGARD the context of the conflict. If they wanted to control it, they would have done it already.

Ossetians want to be independent, they count with Russian passports, they're pretty pro Russian and since the dissolution of the USSR there was an agreement that there would be peacekeeping forced from 3 parties: Russia, South Ossetia and Georgia. South ossetians began to disobey Georgian law and Georgian forces attacked to "restore constitutional order" to that area. The attack was an agression of Georgia towards south Ossetia in which 13 Russian peacekeepers were killed. Georgian onslaught costed South Ossetia hundreads of lives in a single day. Since Georgians broke that agreement Russia acted just as a peacekeeping force should do: attacked the agressor and forced it to peace by disabling its military.

Russia does not control South Ossetia, South Ossetia has a president elected by 94% of the South Ossetian inhabitants. It's broadly said that South Ossetians WANT to join North Ossetia. Nearly 90% of Soputh Ossetian inhabitants count with Russian passports, that is they got Russian citizenship. That clearly shows they're pro-Russian. If they willingly join Russia, it's not an imperialist action.

If you're worried about imperialism then look at US who attacks countries that do not provoke it in any way and do not pose any threat other than the fact they don't favour US market. That is imperialism.

calinis wrote:

And Saddam was having a genocide there

That was not a concern for US until Saddam decided to favour the Europan Market. US troops are also engaging in genocidal actions there in Iraq. Actually more people have suffered and more intensely in 5 years of US occupation than they did during the whole Hussein's dictatorship. That of course being relevant if what you care about is the Iraqi people's wellbeing.

calinis wrote:

and there was a possibility of WMD (I know this eventually turned out to be wrong, but it wasn't just made up with the US. US, British, and Russian intelligence found it to be true. I dont know what failed them), and if there was a possibility that an evil dictator controlled powerful weapons, wouldn't you want to protect yourself?

That's a pretty silly excuse. How the hell would a country with no nuclear technology and with a competely shattered military industry create weapons of mass destruction? And else how would they pose a threat to the US? No way. That's logic.

And, you don't start a war on assumptions, you start it on facts. That's just a stupid excuse. The oficial casus belli for that damned war has been changing always being all of them equally or more stupid than the previous. First US felt threattened that a country with no way to produce a missile able to fly beyond 3,000km would pose a threat to US. Then they say they are going to free the shit out of the Iraqis. They say they export democracy... come on.

The real casus belli is simple: US imperialist pretensions.

calinis wrote:

The government cannot know what people want because there are no prices to show this.

Oh yeah sure. There are not prices and it's impossible to know what people want... after all need is not determined by function or activities but by prices...

calinis wrote:

Say the government decides to put their effort into making computers, but it turns out people demand refridgerators instead.

Hey... guess what? Economy doesn't work that way. The target is to satisfy any possible need. That is, taking your example, Government will produce both refrigerators and computers. So that evey individual has his computing and refrigerating NEEDS satisfied.

It's not like you go around your home, see a space and think "Damn, a refrigerator would just look nice there!". You are going to have food at home and you need to store it, some of it under cold temperatures. That's what you need a refrigerator for and that what the government takes into account when producing a refrigerator. It's not considering to build a bunch of refrigerators just because people want to get refrigerators.

Production targets needs.

calinis wrote:

At least under a market economy, people's decisions infleunce the prices and the prices infleunce what should be produced according to people's needs. How can we tell the scarcity of items without having a price system?

There are several systems, by empirically scientific statistic control, polling and a direct democracy system that will make people's needs be put into effect by government.

calinis wrote:

The toliet paper scanerio is the inevitable result of a planned economy; people wont get what they need.

You are not allowed to say that until you have seen every possible planned economy system working.

calinis wrote:

I used the USSR as an example because, although it wasn't communist, it certainly wasnt capitalist. From what I understand, this was prominent.

USSR was capitalist since it relied on capital to make its economy run. Yet, profit was not a target and a contradiction was ensued. You run on capital but are unable to increase it, you're spending your capital as you work and you don't increase it. You end up bankrrupt and with a sunk economy and that was seen in USSR and other countries with similar systems.

That contradictory economy, a capitalism that searches to destroy capitalism, soon or late enters into critical stages (in the case of USSR catalysed by a new arms race after the end of the Deténte), the economy collapses and you get total lack of goods, discontent, economical chaos and your system gets ruined.

calinis wrote:

Nope, religion was banned. It was an atheist state and people who practiced religion were sent to the Gulags.

Let me see if you convince me.... so I get a little midly informed northamerican kid telling me people in USSR was sent to Gulags for practicing religion... and on the other hand I get my 66 year old Russian teacher telling me how she prayed and how her uncle participated in the reconstruction of churches after WWII; I go to Russia and see lots of Mosques and churches, some of them pretty old; I read history books regarding to how the soviet government even negotiated with the Lithuanian and Polish catholic churches; I go to Russia and see the photographies of my gf's parents' muslim wedding in USSR era...

Nope, you don't convince me kid.

calinis wrote:

I remember there was this whole anti-religious demonstration during the Khruschev-esque era, but I dont remember the details. I'll look it up later.

Several inhabitants of the USSR have told me that the farthest the government went against religion was keeping close control of religious leaders and telling in school that all religions were nothing but old fairy tales.

calinis wrote:

I know people would be brainwashed because the conditions would be so horrible that they would have to tell people they are good in order to avoid counterrevolutionary activities. They did this in Nazi Germany, in the USSR, formally in China, in Cuba, and in North Korea. It is an effective way to control a population that is discontent.

But of course! How didn't I think about this before? If you're starving, don't have home, don't have job and are completely unhappy all you need is to see a poster of a muscular, smiling, vigorous Comrade X reading in big red letters "The fruits of our labour bring us happiness and freedom! Carry on comrades!" to forget all that and disregard it as a lie. Are you serious?

calinis wrote:

Nope, communism breeds immorality because of the basic structure. For one, it takes the heard-earned money from the rich and distributes it to the people who dont deserve it.

False! Communism doesn't take your money and distributes it... It destroys money!

In communism you don't only have the right to work, you have the obligation to work. If you expect something from society give something to it. If you don't work, you're a criminal.

calinis wrote:

The excessive control that the government has on the economy would certainly spread to personal matters. The more control the government has on the economy, the less free the people.

But of course! "Hey you can't get 10l. of milk daily for you only, you can't drink them. I don't drink them, I put it all over the walls of my home to feel happy" That kind of personal freedoms? Communism doesn't allow you to waste precious resources.

What other example... hmm lets see... "I want to have 365 different cars, one for each day. And then to change them next year for a new set of 365" That's te kind of [/i]highly valuable[/i] freedoms you'd give your life for? Poor thing.. I pity you.

Lets see another example.. "Oh I love football but I hate to practice it with other people than my cousins, I want a field just for me and my cousins, yay!" Maybe that too? Communism foments socialization, foments social interaction and has the target to benefit as many as posible. Communism is against alienation.

Maybe another... "Oh f**k... I'm such a sexually active individual that I need 20 fucking condoms a day and the average ration is just 10 daily per person... what Ima gonna do?" Just as there are people that will f**k 20 times a day, there's people that won't even f**k 1 time in a year (sadly, that's for real), so there will always be a way to give more to those who need it taking from the rations of those who don't use. The target is to be able to fulfill the "maximum possible demand".

Let's go with another you Mr. Christian and Stalinists will hate alike: "I'm homosexual and I want dildos, but the state considers them an unneceary item... what to do?" Communities can always gather to demand a limited production of community-intrinsic items and even be in charge of their production, limited by the state which would control all the prime resources.

Want more examples? I got thousands if you want.

calinis wrote:

Hence the reason why dictatorships are inevitable in a communist society. Silencing oppostion is immoral.

You don't read others' posts do you? I would allow opposition to speak... but if they dare to sabotage, they're doomed.

calinis wrote:

Killing people because they want to be rich is immoral.

I'd just kill people that would give their life for their dreams of pissing in gold-made toilets, piling up yachts and luxury cars, and buying more construction meters that the whole population of Sri-Lanka would need for a decent life.

calinis wrote:

You seem very much like Stalin.....this and your support for imperalism. Stalin was an imperalist too, you know.

And if you looked at my mustache! Damn all I need is a furazhka... where the hell is my furazhka and my pipe? Berya, bring them to me please!

I do agree with some stalinist points, I'm anti-abortionist for example, but it's just some little things. And Imperialist... hmm.... I'm sorry but USSR didn't conquer a single country, at least not a country that previously hadn't attacked it. Of course the noticeable example of Poland.

calinis wrote:

Material wealth is not the only thing I want, but it would be nice. I want freedom and that is what capitalism brings.

Capitalism brings freedom through money and the way you get it, that is your freedom in capitalism is proportional to the ammount of money you have minus the proportion of obstacles to get it.

In communism freedom is proportional to societal organization. I prefer to be free through that, than through a fight for money.

calinis wrote:

I do not want to be arrested for expressing my opinion or for practicing my religion.

And that's not communism, unless your religion implies eating babies and your expression implies sabotaging a factory.

calinis wrote:

The people who do not want revolution are not selfish; the people that DO want revolution are selfish.

Me quoting a stupid statement. The status quo has the majourity people sank in unhapiness, we revolutionaries want that unhappy people, that majourity to stand up and fight along us to try ending that unhappiness. Some of us have pretty comfortable positions rigt now, or would have them if we didn't care about others.

Communism is totally based upon caring about the others. This system we have now it's just about seeing how you can profit from others, about how you can step over others to escalate. Plain and simple.

The fact that h thinks one tragety is more important than another because of the people involved makes him a Nazi-sympathizer because of his hatred for Jews (note his "i have no sympathy for them" LOL LOL LOL)

Calling all Jews rich capitalist bastards is an anti-semetic position.


What benefit does Russia get out of it? Oh wait, it satisfies their imperalist interests. Why someone would want to be under control a government that denies freedom? Shut up and stop defending CAPITALIST Russia.

If three countries intelligence says otherwise, it's worth investigation. Perhaps the whole premise was based on a lie, but providing freedom and democracy is ideal to the people. Russia's position is clearly not pro-peace. Why would you support the accusation that they have the people's best intentions at heart but deny the accusation that the American government has the iraqi people's best interest at heart?

Because resources are scare, we must allocate them to serve the needs of the people. The market does a pretty good job in determining what what should be supplied based on consumer behavior and the prices corospond accordingly. You dont have enough resources to give everyone the same amount of stuff. You need some pricing mechanism to tell what consumer demands are in proportinate to supply so you know what to supply to meet the need.

From what I heard, the government actively cracked down on religion. Perhaps there was a wee bit more freedom during Gorbachev's reforms, but religion was looked down upon.

Propoganda can manipulate people into thinking that things will improve, that everything will be okay; history has proven this. That is why it is used in countries that lack freedom.
Have to go have dinner, respond to the rest later.

Under communism, everyone will be a little productive worker right? because you CLEARLY understand human nature eh? hell, they're not going to want to work the best they can. Sure they'll work, you know, so they wont get shot or anything, but they wont work to the potential they can, so technological advancements would be minimal, if at all. And when they're not working they'll all be a nice community eh? Where everyone else is oh-so friendly to everyone else. What would be the point of living? Also there would be blind obidience to the state. Also will there be a government or not? because I'm getting mized messages on this. If not, its flawed in itself and collapse is inevitable. If so, who gets to be in the elite? To what degree do they have authority? And for what? How can we gurantee that there will be not be a dictatorship emerging?

Freedom is destroyed, at least partially, if I do not have the freedom to make my own buisness and profit from it without having a cap. I want to make money. I should have the freedom to do so, without the government saying "nope sorry, you have to have the same resources as Bill the murderer or Suzy the slut." hell no, I'm not equal to those people, and if I want to make a buisness, I should have the right to do so without regulation. If someone else wants to create a buisness and profit, they should be able to do so also and they shouldn't told that it isnt allowed simply because such buisnesses might exploit their labour. And I'm supposed to feel sorry for the dumb drug users, sluts, murderers, rapists etc? Screw them, I want the freedom to make a profit from my hard work, I dont want to be equal to scum. No thanks,

calinis wrote:

And I'm supposed to feel sorry for the dumb drug users, sluts, murderers, rapists etc? Screw them, I want the freedom to make a profit from my hard work, I dont want to be equal to scum. No thanks,

Ok, first of all. You are scum. And second, ever consider WHY they became murderers and rapists, and sluts?!

And tell me this, what IF your sister or mother became a slut? What if your father or brother was secretly an achlohic who beat you everyday? Over about 70% of American familes live like that, their siblings, kids, or parents messed up in some way or another. That is America's future. A future of blind nationalist obeience under "God". What is the meaning of freedom if over half the population of 300 million can't even have a good family relationship?

Answer me that WITHOUT considering "democracy and freedom" bullshit I hear everyday. What's the point of freedom if familes can not even work together?

Look at the fking facts mister. Because you are in SERIOUS need of reeducation.

People become murderers and rapists and sluts because they are immoral. It was their own fault. They want to harm society.

While perhaps you would blame such immorality on the "injustice" of capitalism, I however will not excuse their actions.

The concept of a good family was destroyed since the 1950s where morality was prodominant. As a more secular nation approaches, I fear what has become of morality. What happened to the nice family structure where the dad worked and the mum stayed home with the kids, and they went to church every sunday, and the kids were respectful and they didnt go out having sex and partying like today's stupid teenagers?

That iw what we need. The 1950 values restored.