Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Communism is an economic system, not a system of Government. There are also many forms of "democracy" - you can have representative, direct, majoritarian, corporate (where Corporation manufacture consent and are the de facto holders of power (as in America)), liberal, social, etc, etc.

A "Republic" is just a state where the head of state is not a monarch (as it is in the UK.) Seperation of powers is a Classical Liberal idea (due to their fear of the "Tyranny of the majority" (they were scared that the poor would rise up and take what is theirs)) which is why the US is known as a "Liberal Democracy".

I'd have a beer with Marx, Trotsky, Michael Collins, Che and Chomsky. Okay, as much beer as I could handle.....it would be the most interesting conversation ever.....especially with me involved.

Look, it's basic nihilism. Life is subjective, which means that only what we believe exists actually exists.

No, that's vulgar realism. If something is subjective (reliant on the subject (as opposed to objective, reliant on the object) it just depends on how you view something, people who accept that their views are subjective would not claim what they believe is what is correct, just that they believe it is - in fact someone who believes they are objective would say that what they believe is correct.

Whouldn't you want your strongest ally, the americans, to help your weak ass military of less that 50,000 people?

They wouldn't need to. The whole world would be sending aid to peaceful Canada. Yay Canadians!

Didn't I already answer this question. Wealth and success isn't the only driving factor though. Intimidation from the government can also be a driving factor to work; which is what would end up in a Communist society.

Why?

Well thank you for your expert opinion on humans.

Is that supposed to be some sarcastic counter-argument? If so, it sucks.

What? You think my counter argument about your argument being founded upon an unfounded view of human nature sucks? You think arguments should be based upon unfounded views?

Immigration rates wouldn't be high because of percieved economic opportunities, lack of economic opportunities in other countries (so like in Mexico), the predominance of American culture, already established immigrant populations, the relative freedom of America, etc, etc?

Did that really needed to be ended with a question mark. Nonetheless, you're right, America does offer some great economic opportunities to immigrants, but why are you holding that against us?

I never said that they offered great economic opportunities. You said that the reason that immigration rates into the US are high due to people wanting to work hard or whatever you said. I countered by listing a large number of other factors which could be the cause of a high immigration rate. Again, I was challenging you on unfounded assumptions.

Another question, are immigration rates high?

Yes. If you do your research, you can find lots of information on the large number of immigrants that come to America looking for work and opportunity.

That's not how you would find out if immigration rates are high. You would have to compare immigration into the country (with reference to population and land mass) with other countries to get an indication of a "high" level of immigration.

Or their political repression.....or many other reasons.

Gee, I wonder how they got that way? Did you by any chance read my argument on how Communism could lead to political oppression in large, powerful nations? Just curious.

You make arguments? Go on, y'know you want to. What's your argument?

There are people in these lands who want peace and a education, HOWEVER they are FORCED by their domestic regimes into ignorance! The REGIMES will only be removed via force. It is sad and sick, but it's reality.

And this has to be foreign force? Why exactly? Who removed the US's shackles? France's? Russia's (1917 revolution)? Haiti's (I mention Haiti because I keep on seeing it everywhere)? Etc? Etc? Etc?

It may seem like quite an obvious point but democracy can not be imposed. It took most countries years to establish a representative democracy - it required a change in culture, a movement towards education and direct grassroots action.

Not to mention the fact that a foreign power has no mandate over other areas.

So what? People can change. I did all sorts of shit myself, but that doesnt mean that my entire life is dictated by some mistake that I did in the past. People can change, and so this really isnt a big deal actually.

You're saying that one of the most militant leaders in the world skipping out on his small portion of military service is not a big deal? Interesting.

I don?t know about you or Slizor, but I?m in college and there?s a reason; I don?t want to wind up in some crappy, dead-end job. I understand the best things in life don?t come from work (unless you?re working an extremely fulfilling job), but from family life and sharing time from people you love. But how can you have those wonderful things without a good job? It?s difficult to have a wonderful family life without a good job. How can you expect to be happy without a job living in the gutter?

What the sod are you going on about? What is a "good job"? Why can't you have one in Communism?

is what makes Capitalism work; initiative. The driving force to succeed.

So by success you mean getting rich? Not getting a top job, that's not success.......success is defined by how much money you have, isn't it?

To ability to be entitled more than what you have now because of your drive to work harder than the next guy (the second reason Capitalism works so well: competition). When you create a Communist society, you take a wind out of the economy. Without competition or initiative, the economy becomes stolid and it shows on its impassive workers.

Why must you veil your argument? Your argument is that people are motivated by money, isn't it? That's why they work. And, of course, this is the only way people are motivated.

People prefer to work harder for a happier life even at the risk of failing and becoming poor.

Well thank you for your expert opinion on humans.

That?s why immigration rates are so high for America.

People come to the US because they want to work harder for a happier life? Ah, so that doesn't happen anywhere else in the world. Immigration rates wouldn't be high because of percieved economic opportunities, lack of economic opportunities in other countries (so like in Mexico), the predominance of American culture, already established immigrant populations, the relative freedom of America, etc, etc?

Another question, are immigration rates high?

Last I checked, people weren?t exactly flocking to China for their economic opportunities.

Or their political repression.....or many other reasons.

"People" like it, eh? You're saying that all people will get the luxuries that come with being a large, successful society?

People with jobs of lesser importance (taxi drivers) wouldn't be entitled to the same luxuries as say someone with a job of greater importance (surgeons). That's pretty reasonable.

Since the working class is always the biggest class (current globalisation trends are a different issue) then the average would be around that mark. The taxi driver would probably get more luxuries - the "people" would get more luxuries, the elite (who don't actually earn them) would get less.

Please explain......maybe with reference to Communist thinkers.

How can someone move up in society when all members of society are to be entitled to the same things as everyone else? Communism makes for an unfulfilling life.

The whole point of life is to move up in society? Shit, most of the world must live an unfufilling life then. Obviously people don't lead fulfilling lives by doing jobs they like and knowing they are making a difference......no fulfillment comes from the pay packet.

Maybe in a perfect society it could work, but this is reality and it doesn't work that way. Care to explain how someone can move up in a Communist society?

"Move up"? What, how they can get jobs that are higher up? Like from being a doctor to being a surgeon? Training and skill. That's a very strange question.

Equality is nice, but people like having the luxuries that come with being a part of large, successful society.

"People" like it, eh? You're saying that all people will get the luxuries that come with being a large, successful society?

Part of that is moving up in society; Being able to move up in the workplace with the motivation of a more fulfilling lifestyle.

Tacit assumption: In Communism you can't move up in the workplace.

Please explain......maybe with reference to Communist thinkers.

PS: I do wonder why people rely on 1984 and Animal Farm.....thinking it a critique of Communism. Orwell was a socialist, the books are about totalitarianism, in particular Stalin.

We'll all be dressed like peasants made with industrial grade cotton that comes in a variety of depressing gray colours. It just seems like a depressing, dull life where you live to work.

Why do you equate equality with uniformity? And then why do you relate your ridiculous notion of equality to Communism? That has never been proposed by a Communist.

Everyone complains about this war so much. They say bush initiated a pre-emptive strike. Has everyone forgot about UN Resolution 1441?

go here, and read ALL of it.
1441

Now, tell me again about a 'pre-emptive strike'. That resolution covers almost every reason we had for going to war. And that's the United Nations who issued these requirments of saddam, not bush. Saddam methodically defied UN resolution after UN resolution. Which, technically, means the war in Iraq was NOT pre-emptive at all...but more a case of cause and effect.

He did not defy UN Resolution 1441. If you read it you will see the last clause (clause 13?) says that the Council will remain "seized of the matter". That means they have not decided anything further. Iraq let weapons inspectors go where they liked and produced the required documentation. Then the US declared (note: it was the US not the UN) Iraq in material breech without decent proof.

If US intelligence was good enough to know they had weapons, then they must have known where they were (it stands to reason that to know something exists you must know where it is) yet they are unable to find them now.....any of them.

Them Imagrents come in and they don't even learn the language!

The death of one is a tragedy but the death of a milion is just a statistic.

It's "The death of ten is a tragedy, the death of ten million is a statistic". Well actually it's probably in Russian (Stalin said it) and quite a bit different.

You think Slizor? One of my profs has said they are interchangable.

They're interchangable in practice, but not in theory (basically because "Conservative thought" is an oxymoron at the best of times.) Y'see Neo-Liberalism relies on people being "rugged individuals" who can look out for themselves and make their own decisions (and thus they support the free market.) Neo-Conservatism relies on people being morally corruptable and weak (and thus the state has to make moral decisions for people (gay marriage, abortion, etc.)

Often, in practice, politicians use parts of both views (Thatcher, Reagan, etc) but they are inconsistant (and incoherant) in doing so.

Nationalism comes in many forms. There is fascist nationalism (which may include racism, generally a belief that your country is superior), Conservative nationalism (like Euroskeptics, mainly a cultural issue than a racial issue), Liberal Nationalism (the belief a group of people should have their own country) and anti-colonial nationalism (again, a group of people should have their own country, can be a bit different.)

Generically, a nationalist is someone who supports their own country (it has nothing to do with being against other countries.) The example given is one of racism (showing hatred of a people) and not nationalism (supporting one's own country.)

Neo-Liberalism is a Corporate rehash of Classical Liberalism (note: not Classical Liberalism itself.) Neo-Conservatism is a xenophobic highly authoritarian brand of moralism. They are two seperate ideologies.

The problem is, however, that groups ike the Republicans adopt the worst parts out of each of the ideas. They enforce a free market on the rest of the world, then put barriers up to trade in their own country, they want to get rid of wefare and they are highly authoritarian (note: neo-Conservatism and Neo-Liberalism rely on two different (and pretty opposite) conceptions of human nature and thus are fundamentally uncompatable.)

The Democrats don't offer either, but instead a brand of rightist modern Liberalism.

It depends on the Constiuency. If the Tories are in power (they're not here) then I'd vote for the second party. If Labour were in power then I'd vote for the SWP or Socialist Alliance.

I don't trust the Lib Dems, they're bastards, they made a coalition council with the Tories in my local area.

So you're arguing that an event that happened seven years prior directly caused the second Intifada? It wouldn't be about a general rising in tensions, Ariel Sharon's visit to Temple Mount or an increased amount of settlers, as most well-educated observers have concluded?

Slizor, would I sum up your position correctly if I said that you notice that America is doing some things, you notice that it is going unchallenged, but believe them to be immoral, whilst merely noticing that they use their power to over-rule other people in 'authority'?

Not quite. My view is that the US official position (that the war was pre-emptive and legal) is just propaganda and has nothing to do with reality. The problem is, however, that some parts (like it being a pre-emptive war) are not questioned and just incorrectly accepted (usually due to a lack of terms.) The issue of legitimacy, which Sween brought up, is an entirely different issue.

nope. As proven time and time again, when you go easy on palestine, they just blow EVEN MORE jews up(thinks before Shaaron, when they were offered more land than ever before, which just caused them to break out into their litle Jihad).

You're talking about the 1993 agreements, right? (where they still weren't offered a viable state.) And then the 2000 intifada? Is that your evidence?

what many forget is that the occupation of territories siezed during the six day war is being used as an excuse for a genocidal war of hatred against the israelis. even if the occupied territories are returned there will still be terrorism, just as there was before 1967. the six day war was started because (some of) the arab nations took exceptions to jews being alive.

The Six Day war was started by Israel, not by the Arab states. It can therefore be called a "landgrab" war.

The US does in fact disregard the UN when it suits them. Take a look at the Kyoto Protocol. Or the the landmine ban.

I know that they do, it's that it's not legitimate to do so.

I don't see how you can keep making the same logical error. Here's a simpler example. If a small government was formed between five 12 year olds and a professional wrestler, the wrestler could at any time subvert the will of the entire government. It is rediculous to say that he wouldn't because one wrestler couldn't overpower a professional wrestler and five 12 year olds.

Again, power and legitimacy are two seperate issues. The Wrestler has the power, but not the right.

I thought that it would be assumed that if there was a conflict between the United States and the UN the United states wouldn't be counted as part of the UN, after all the US won't attack the US

They would be because they already had joined the UN and thus were expected to follow the rules. The US can't just choose to be in or out of the UN when it suits them, they can't choose to regard or disregard international law.......wait, isn't that what pro-war people say Saddam did?

Congress didn't decide it was legal, they just let the President go to war, which is a whole different thing. I don't quite see how the US Congress decisions apply to territory of another state's.

Then how can you say the UN law is legitimate if countries congresses don't apply to other states, thats what the entire premise of the UN is.

How so?

As the Doc said, what does number of countries have to do with it? More people elected the US leaders than all of the democratic veto holding countries of the UN.

The democratic veto holding countries of the UN = UK, France, Russia and the US. For what you are saying to be true then the UK, France and Russia must have people who have "negative votes".

Laws can only be made by those who have the power to enforce them, those are the only laws that are legitimate, the UN has no power to enforce thier laws, and they often don't, yet the US can.

Actually power and legitimacy are two seperate issues. Corporations have power, but they're not legitimate holders of power. The US government has legitimacy over the territory it rules over, but it may not have the power.

This is basic Political Philosophy, if you don't know the basics I don't see why I should bother getting into the more advanced stuff with you.

Well actually UN law has been made by loads of countries, whereas US law only comes from the US.

I don't follow your logic, what does that have to do with the legitimacy of the law. Why do it by number of countries, how about by population, or territory, or maybe by GDP or military might. What makes a law more or less legitimate.

Okay, let's see. If we do it by population, territory, GDP and military might, then the laws of the UN (see the UN founding charter, it forbids use of force except in three circumstances, none of which are preventative war) outweight the laws of the US. The UN has like every country in the world under its banner (including the US)and thus would beat any single country.

I would, however, like to point out that "legitimate" is a subjective POV word. An anarchist would argue that no law is legitimate. Now, do you view international laws, drafted by many states, less legitimate then laws made by one state that effect territory not under its control?

If we are to disregard international law, why was Saddam not allowed WMD again?

And why is what some guy thinks more important than what the US congress decided?

Congress didn't decide it was legal, they just let the President go to war, which is a whole different thing. I don't quite see how the US Congress decisions apply to territory of another state's.

UN law is no more legitimate than US law.

Well actually UN law has been made by loads of countries, whereas US law only comes from the US.

I ask again, how is it legal?

You've lost me here, Slizor. IF Saddam HAD WMD, then the war would be Preventive, because he had them, and would use them against us. Seeing as he doesn't. It is Pre-Emptive, because there is no threat to us? Or do I have those mixed up?

No no, either way (with regards to WMD) it would be a preventative war. There was no obvious threat from Saddam, even if he did have WMD. If, however, he had them and the US intercepted intelligence saying he was going to use them, then it would be pre-emptive.

I was just hanging around on the 'net, waiting for a page to load when I just happened to catch part of a conversation with evilkate. Now, apparently, our favourite troll, Nemmy, is her boyfriend......and even better, they met over NG.

Andrew (Nemmy) is a net whore!

Nope, it's perfectly legal.

How so?
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0814-01.htm
"To date, no branch of the U.S. government has officially explained a basis on which an attack on Iraq would be lawful," John Quiqley, professor of law at Ohio State University, said Monday.

A man is standing on the street with what appears to be a gun
Saddam had an entire country under his thumb, and because he neither reliquished or proved false these claims, I am convinced that we had weapons of Mass Destruction.

Well he did reliquish, do you not know what the Weapons Inspectors were doing? He handed over a dossier of what he had (said he had) and let the inspectors go about their business. How is he going to prove that something doesn't exist? Point to a dune and say "look, they're not there!"