Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 8/24/13 12:42 PM, Feoric wrote:

At 8/24/13 11:18 AM, Grimdalus wrote: I've never really taken you seriously because you are liberal but not a communist.

lmao

All official and liberal science defends wage-slavery, whereas Marxism has declared relentless war on that slavery.

Lenin, The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism (1913)

At 8/24/13 08:45 AM, Light wrote:

At 8/24/13 08:37 AM, Grimdalus wrote:

No, it doesn't.

Death penalty doe not mean snuff films. They could make it into gladiatorial pits where prisoners try to escape and an executioner hunts them.

I'm going to stop taking you seriously now.

I was joking. Also, I've never really taken you seriously because you are liberal but not a communist.

Batman and Robin all over again...

I hate it when it's on public transport.

At 8/24/13 07:33 AM, Light wrote:

At 8/24/13 07:24 AM, LazyDrunk wrote:

At 8/23/13 09:33 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote:

At 8/23/13 08:50 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: My position on the death penalty?

Pay. Per. View.

People who enjoy snuff films are among the sickest people in the world.

Society has a right to be entertained.

No, it doesn't.

Death penalty doe not mean snuff films. They could make it into gladiatorial pits where prisoners try to escape and an executioner hunts them.

Hunt it with a shotgun/

As a believer in the Norse God, I believe in the death penalty. It is retribution and justice for the dead, fair. Personally, I would have child molesters, terrorists and murderers blood eagled.

At 8/23/13 10:48 PM, Warforger wrote:

At 8/21/13 11:57 AM, Grimdalus wrote: Castro, became communist out of opportunity, he started as a nationalist,

That is debatable. It's at least very well known that Che Guevera and Raul Castro were Communists before the revolution, but it's not clear if Fidel was and indeed we may never truly know even though he's still alive.

America had plantations linked to the Government of Cuba at the time and other nations. The conditions were horrible and the pay was terrible.

Yah, hence why they supported the overthrow of Batista. The problem is that Communism essentially ended up being the same thing.

Why should America care if South Vietnam lost in a free election? The hypocrisy of it is enormous. From backing the Vietminh in WW2 to stabbing them in the back.

Sort of. Part of the problem was that most of the population of Vietnam lived in the North, and the North had a suppressive government which obviously wouldn't have allowed for fair elections. Thus it was kind of a lose lose for everyone except the Communists.

The new Libyan regime is worse than the old one.

How? Because it's not Socialist like the old one?

Yes, I do. I feel Australia and New Zealand has become satellite states to the US for example. Australia regularly relies on the US for military technology.

A satellite state would also mirror the same policies. Simply buying military technology isn't really evidence of it being a satellite state. The US government doesn't tell the Australian government what to do. Let's put this in comparison, Communist Bulgaria is the perfect example of a Satellite state. The dictator was Todor Zhivkov, he mirrored Soviet policies to the exact detail and followed their lead in foreign policy matters. On two occasions he proposed to the USSR that Bulgaria join the USSR. The question more is, what is simply agreement, obviously both America and Australia share many values such as Democracy, and what is a Satellite state.

We follow the US in any military situation, they have military bases in Australia. Many people called John Howard, George Bush's puppet for example. The new Libyan government is a radical muslim government which is anti west. Uncle Ho turned to the US and wanted a democratic system but when he was rejected, he turned to communism. It's true, we shall never know about Fidel but there is documentary with him explaining the reasons why he done the revolution. I disagree with the concept that the Vietnamese and Cuban governments are/were oppressive. Freedom is just privilege extended unless enjoyed by one and all. Freedom from starvation, freedom from the bourgeoisie, true freedom, not freedom for the slavers.

At 8/21/13 12:45 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: I just wnt to know why its all reversed I know Labor is center left we have a minor party like that. but Liberal is used to describe the Right? thats different. though National is still the same.

The Liberal party has become more conservative over the last two decades. John Howard, made the Liberal party a more conservative party. The Liberal Party has not become more progressive as more time has gone by.

I can't do good textures for shit with Flash.

At 8/21/13 12:26 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: like communism works.

Freedom is merely privilege extended unless enjoyed by one and all. Freedom from poverty, freedom for all races, freedom for all genders, freedom from starvation. This thread is about Australian election so keep on topic. It will turn into Communist versus capitalist talk.

I heard people from the US can not gift games to Australians anymore. Is that true?

Without further due, the Australia election has been announced and it is on September 10. I am personally disgusted by the lack of good candidates. I am voting Independence in the lower house and the Australian communist party in the senate.

10/10 Fuck yeah Bathory
Venom - Welcome to Hell

At 8/21/13 11:53 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:

At 8/21/13 11:47 AM, Grimdalus wrote:

From what I've watched: In Che's Guevera's documentary The regime was unpopular, the Cuban revolution happened because Cuba became a corrupt place ruled by the mafia and the government under martial rule. The wealth distrubution was very unevenly distributed.

biased source. plus che guevara was a tool I would like to know how that global revolution went.

I find it hypocritical that the USA would prevent revolutions to occur yet they declared independence as a colony. Ho Chi Minh wanted peaceful solutions but the Americans would not co-operate. They considered communism a threat, which it is not and was not. The Soviets were on the verge of collapse at the time period so that reason was not valid at the period of time.

america barely had anything to do with Ho Chi it was the french he was dealing with. and the soviets were harldy far from collapsing try a few decades IE 1991.

HAHAHHAHHAHAHA. You're joking right.
WW2: Vietminh and Americans work together to help kick Japan out of Vietnam. Ho Chi Minh quotes the declaration of Independence, in the conferenence after WW2, American did not back Vietnamese Independence and back the French so Ho Chi Minh turned to the Soviet Union and China for assistance instead. America delayed elections in South Vietnam and tried to prevent the unifcation of Vietnam.

Also, that is your opinion, Che was a hero and a person who tried to free people from the clutches of poverty.

At 8/21/13 11:41 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:

well who do countries go to when they have a problem most of the time the US. seeing as the UN is nothing but nigh useless. I would love to see other countries join in but most of the time the countries that provoke it are some third world shit holes, you don't see first world NATO countries pull that kind of shit.

So, it's justified imperialism? What America is using is a Casus Belli as a justification for war.

At 8/21/13 11:44 AM, Warforger wrote:

At 8/21/13 11:22 AM, Grimdalus wrote: Oh really. Tell me why America backed Fulgencio Batista in Cuba

They really didn't. In fact the US actually supported Castro (Castro wasn't an overt Communist for a while and it's still debated whether or not he was in fact a Communist at the beginning of the revolution or if during the revolution he became a Communist) because Batista was proving to be unpopular, corrupt and going against US interests. The same was for the Shah of Iran, the US supported the Ayatollah for a while because the Shah was becoming increasingly hostile.

It was more of a paranoia of the time. It wasn't that the Land Reforms were outrageous, it was the fear that it was the growing influence of Communism. Castro proved just that.

Several reasons, the French were an ally and they said they needed their colonies to rehabilitate their economy. But overall the Americans didn't support the Imperialism and allowed for an independent Vietnam. As for elections, it was because the South Vietnamese government would lose, they essentially had no one to run who was even better than Ngo Diem and he was a bit of an asshole.

When? Because he's dead now. The first Gulf War it was because the US wasn't trying to take advantage of the situation. Papa Bush said that he was going in to free Kuwait, not to overthrow the Iraqi government, and so he simply freed Kuwait and ended the war. He had the opportunity to invade Iraq itself and overthrow Saddam but he didn't take it.

They didn't back the Taliban, they backed the Mujahadin. The Taliban merely split off from them. The reason was so that they could first defeat the domestic Communist government, then the Soviet invasion. And neither the Taliban nor the Mujahadin (at least the Afghanni ones) were a prescence in Iraq, in fact the Taliban movement is mostly an ethnic movement for the Pashtuns.

Depends, do you distinguish satellite governments from governments that simply agree with the US?

In the 90's it was not because it was doing it in cooperation with other nations to stop genocide and things like the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. In terms of the Iraq war it definitely was. In terms of the conflict in Libya, well most of the fighting was done by EU squadrons the US mostly just supplied them.

Castro, became communist out of opportunity, he started as a nationalist, America had plantations linked to the Government of Cuba at the time and other nations. The conditions were horrible and the pay was terrible. Why should America care if South Vietnam lost in a free election? The hypocrisy of it is enormous. From backing the Vietminh in WW2 to stabbing them in the back. The new Libyan regime is worse than the old one. Yes, I do. I feel Australia and New Zealand has become satellite states to the US for example. Australia regularly relies on the US for military technology.

At 8/21/13 11:37 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:

At 8/21/13 11:22 AM, Grimdalus wrote: Oh really. Tell me why America backed Fulgencio Batista in Cuba and focused on stopping land reforms in Latin and South America.

Batista initially rose to power as part of the 1933 "Revolt of the Sergeants" that overthrew the authoritarian rule of Gerardo Machado. Batista then appointed himself chief of the armed forces, with the rank of colonel, and effectively controlled the five-member Presidency. He maintained this control through a string of puppet presidents until 1940, when he was himself elected President of Cuba on a populist platform.He then instated the 1940 Constitution of Cuba, considered progressive for its time, and served until 1944. After finishing his term he lived in the United States, returning to Cuba to run for president in 1952. he was US backed because he was Anti-Soviet Union.

Why did America support the French regime in Vietnam during the first Indo-china war and prohibit Vietnamese elections?

they were requested by the French through the Mutual Defense Assistance Act As the Cold War developed, these acts were part of the American policy of containment of Communism.

Why did America let Suddam Hussein live and why did they back the taliban multiple times just to invade Afghanistan and Iraq to set up puppet governments?

he was asset that they couldn't let go until he finally lost his value it was the cold war after all.

From what I've watched: In Che's Guevera's documentary The regime was unpopular, the Cuban revolution happened because Cuba became a corrupt place ruled by the mafia and the government under martial rule. The wealth distrubution was very unevenly distributed.

I find it hypocritical that the USA would prevent revolutions to occur yet they declared independence as a colony. Ho Chi Minh wanted peaceful solutions but the Americans would not co-operate. They considered communism a threat, which it is not and was not. The Soviets were on the verge of collapse at the time period so that reason was not valid at the period of time.

At 8/21/13 11:36 AM, HolidayJester wrote:

At 8/21/13 11:35 AM, Grimdalus wrote: FUCK YOU! COWBELLS ARE AWESOME! Check out of this song, it would be incomplete without a cowbell.
Blue Oyster Cult - (Don't Fear) The Reaper

Nah, cowbells are ugly, and loud.

You haven't heard it used right. :P

8/10 Badass as hell.
Blue Oyster Cult - (Don't Fear) The Reaper

At 8/21/13 01:44 AM, ToddM wrote: Cowbell for worst though the recorder is damn close.

FUCK YOU! COWBELLS ARE AWESOME! Check out of this song, it would be incomplete without a cowbell.
Blue Oyster Cult - (Don't Fear) The Reaper

At 8/20/13 06:01 PM, JayTheWiz wrote: THIS!!!!

Exactly!

At 8/21/13 11:20 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:

At 8/21/13 09:43 AM, NewgroundsMike wrote:

At 8/20/13 07:58 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: and the point is what?

YOU NEED BETTER GUN LAWS, THAT'S THE MOTHERFUCKING POINT!

I'm sick of America.

the current laws are fine.

Maybe this graph will help you. Notice the places which has banned guns has lower gun crime rates.

At 8/21/13 11:20 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:

At 8/21/13 11:15 AM, Light wrote: Let's just ignore the entire history of the Cold War and the history of the U.S. after 1991 while we're at it.

proxy conflicts that we responded to.

Still makes us the world police.

and shouldn't be but who else has the balls to do it the UK france? maybe hell has frozen over and its the UN!

America likes to have the world under their sphere or influence.

Wait, so you mean to tell me that the U.S. doesn't really care much about its sphere of influence, Tony?

That's bull and you know it.

of course not we love our sphere of influence all I am saying that sphere of influence is through cooperation and mutual respect through treaties and diplomatic relations. though I should have phrased that better..

I disagree a lot of it is to do with sanctions. A lot of nations that is in "mutual respect", I call American Puppet Governments or Satellite Countries. It is not America's right to police the world, that is Jingoism. All it does is separate America from the rest of the world and make America become the aggressor.

At 8/21/13 10:13 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:

At 8/21/13 09:50 AM, Grimdalus wrote: I'd classify it as Imperialism. American Imperialism has been rampant,

hardly.

they consider themselves the world police,

countries come to us because we are most likely to do something. they don't go to the UN because its useless.

America likes to have the world under their sphere or influence.

hardly its because of treaties and NATO Cooperation.

Oh really. Tell me why America backed Fulgencio Batista in Cuba and focused on stopping land reforms in Latin and South America. Why did America support the French regime in Vietnam during the first Indo-china war and prohibit Vietnamese elections? Why did America let Suddam Hussein live and why did they back the taliban multiple times just to invade Afghanistan and Iraw to set up puppet governments?

At 8/21/13 09:28 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:

At 8/21/13 08:22 AM, Grimdalus wrote: I hope they do not intervene, I'm sick of American Imperialism.

LOL its hardly imperialism.

I'd classify it as Imperialism. American Imperialism has been rampant, they consider themselves the world police, America likes to have the world under their sphere or influence.

It's a good thing there is a death penalty in that state. Hang them, that'll teach them for killing an Aussie. If they don't listen we will come after them and cover them in vegemite. :D

At 8/21/13 12:36 AM, All-American-Badass wrote: Rule 34. NO exceptions. we don't like it any more than you do but that's the nature of the beast that is the internet.

You beat me to it.

At 8/21/13 08:33 AM, Stretchysumo wrote:

At 8/21/13 06:55 AM, YellowisCOOL wrote: That's just disgusting and insensitive. Why would you make fun of someone with autism or any other disease or disorder?

You try being around loud obnoxious retards for long enough. Especially if you had to hear their shit everyday in your own home. I've had a lot of bad experiences with loud and violent retards over the years. I'd go insane if I had to hear tardscreams all day.

My god I agree with you. I cringe at the very thought of being around with people with that low functionality autistic child. It's rather distasteful.

I hope they do not intervene, I'm sick of American Imperialism.