Be a Supporter!

Best Form Of Government?

  • 2,934 Views
  • 112 Replies
New Topic Respond to this Topic
JakeHero
JakeHero
  • Member since: May. 30, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Blank Slate
Response to Best Form Of Government? 2006-12-07 18:46:19 Reply

Funny how Lenin's Russia fared far better in this period than other nations around the world...

Once again probably because of all its natural resources and isolated market(non-existed) at the time, so they wouldn't be affected.

If anything it's just that America is a war-based economy; notice that America must either be isolationist or warring at ANY point in it's history, or the economy crumbles. And this globalized world makes isolationism impossible, sooo....

You went over my point. Those socialist programs you're praising is what is killing us today. If we don't reform them or completely abort them we're screwed. Those socialism might have offered a temporary solution, but in the long run they've hurt us.

Then why did the economy begin to recover when FDR introduced his New Deal (which was basically just a five-year plan tied in with worker's rights), years before WW2?

They didn't significantly recover until WW2 where people actually had work. If not for WW2 the Great Depression in the US would of still been around.

And happy 1500th post to me.


BBS Signature
cold-as-hell
cold-as-hell
  • Member since: Apr. 22, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Best Form Of Government? 2006-12-07 19:00:10 Reply

I got an idea for a great government. One that doesnt think war is a good thing, isnt a jackass and isnt corrupt. Like thats going happen anytime soon.

azn-vink
azn-vink
  • Member since: Jun. 30, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 24
Blank Slate
Response to Best Form Of Government? 2006-12-07 19:29:22 Reply

At 12/1/06 07:45 PM, bigkahuna2020 wrote: Democracy, Communism, Republic, Tribalism, Anarchy, Capitalism, Dictatorship, Monarchy, Regional or Local, Totalitarian, or Transitional you decide or better yet rate each one.

democracy 4 the win


wewdiewg

MortifiedPenguins
MortifiedPenguins
  • Member since: Apr. 21, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 18
Blank Slate
Response to Best Form Of Government? 2006-12-07 19:33:32 Reply

At 12/5/06 03:35 AM, fli wrote:
"To each, his own" as the saying goes...
People have different needs and wants, and so it's rather naive to think that only one form of government can fulfill everyone's needs and wants.

No, but by the belie in just law, universal justice and human rights, then there are certain governments that aren't great.


Between the idea And the reality
Between the motion And the act, Falls the Shadow
An argument in Logic

BBS Signature
xMystic-Manx
xMystic-Manx
  • Member since: Jan. 26, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 03
Blank Slate
Response to Best Form Of Government? 2006-12-07 21:34:02 Reply

Xenocracy FTW!!!

Because only intelligent inter-stellar aliens can guide us down the road to perfection :)

(Note: Xenocracy is a government runned by aliens and is entirely fictionous. If you actually believe my post even as I wrote this note [highly unlikely], I feel bad for you...)

theGodlyOne
theGodlyOne
  • Member since: Jun. 15, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 13
Blank Slate
Response to Best Form Of Government? 2006-12-07 21:51:14 Reply

well, on paper communism actually sounds the best, everyone's equal all that (if you call me a commy bastard your an ignorant piece of crap because you don't know what communism actually is)but in the real life it would never work ebcause the CEO of a company would get the same wages as a taxi driver

altanese-mistress
altanese-mistress
  • Member since: Mar. 25, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 03
Blank Slate
Response to Best Form Of Government? 2006-12-07 21:59:29 Reply

At 12/7/06 06:43 PM, BanditByte wrote: Once again, with Russia's natural resources it was easy to succeed. Don't give credit to a system that had all the materials at its lap.

Then explain Russia from the end of the Napoleonic Wars all the way up to the end of the First Great World War? You seem to imply that ANY system would let Russia rise to power, so why not an aristocratic monarchy?

This doesn't stop Florida or Mexico.

Florida has the rest of the Union to rebuild it, and Mexico is way worse off than Cuba even in the calmer seasons.

I would rather live under Hitler because his eugenics was more realistic than Lenin's idiotic lysenkoism.

Oh, I get it; you're a Nazi.

Actually, Hitler didn't want to wipe out all jews, but he wanted them out of Germany and Australia so they couldn't sabotage the "perfect race's" genepool.

He specifically stated; many times; that he wanted every Non-Aryan to be enslaved and eventually exterminated. Ever read Mein Kamph?

Probably because Lenin himself was a Hebrew.

He was from a very mixed background; Russian, Swedish, German, Jewish, and many others.

By the way, the only reason Lenin fought against eugenics was because he was what would be considered a mongrel race or slave one due to his blotted blood and mixed ancestry; it wasn't due to principle or revelation, but for self-perservation.

You're basically saying that humans are incapable of compassion and empathy unless they are directly effected. Typical capitalist and Nazi thinking.

Yeah, I guess killing thousands of people and establishing a government where if you disagree you're shot on the spot. Yeah, true freedom at it's finest.

Please don't confuse Stalin with Lenin. And the only reason anyone died under Lenin was because it was a time of both World War and Civil War, in both cases major powers from around the world are trying to destroy all that you and your people have worked for.

It was such a holy and perfect form of government I guess that's why all the communist leaders made such a radical shift.

So you're saying that Mao Tse-Tung and Joseph Stalin and Ho Chi Mihn and Pol Pot and Kim Il-Sung etc. etc. were all better than Lenin? All of these people were out for themselves, nothing like Lenin. Lenin was a true hero of the people, and wanted not for his own personal gain, but rather the greater good of the working class. And if Leon Trotsky (his true successor) had taken leadership instead of Stalin, the USSR would have continued this path of equality and freedom.

I was speaking figuratively, but look at all the places in the world where they have had a communist uprising where millions upon millions of people are killed in mere days.

That happens in any revolution, especially when considering that major world powers fel compelled to get involved.

If capitalism is a poison then communist must be a nuclear bomb. Not only that, but there isn't one communist nation considered among the industrial ones.

Because there is no communist nation. But there are nations slowly evolving into socialism; the UK, Germany, Sweden, Canada. Just to name a few.

They could be considered leftwing as well. Due to their radical ideas about change and some of the policies they implimented, but they were primarily conservative nonetheless.

Communism is the extreme left, and Nazism is the extreme right.

Linking me to wikipedia doesn't prove your point. :/

And not provided ANY sources really doesn't help you.
I also linked the NBP's homepage.

A communist could run tomorrow and probably get 80% of the democrat vote.

All third parties are just shams; utter frauds. And thats such a great bias you have against the Democratic party.

Oh yeah, I guess if I worked in a Intelligence Office in Europe and sold information to a hostile nation or actively said or encouraged the assassination of a political leader it would not land my ass in jail.

The first two would get you arrested anywhere, but you CAN publically call for the death of a political figure.

How does this make it any less democratical?

1) 'democratical'?
2) Because even if more people vote for canidate A, canidate B could still win because s/he got more electoral votes.

So you admit communism is stupid and impossible to get?

I only admit that is too perfect for humans today, and we must evolve past our greed in order for it to work.

Yeah, but it had alot of muslims. That's worse than communism.

This REALLY doesn't help your argument. But then again you're a Nazi, so your argument is tetering death anyways.

There will always be classes because some people are better than others due to genetics. Lysenkoism and optimistic transcendentalism is bullshit.

^_- Nazi scum.

Capitalism has been around since ancient times

Modern capitalism came about only a couple centuries ago. Free market isn't the same as capitalism.

Bullshit. The USSR engaged in an aggressive campaign of Imperialism

The USSR was kept inside of it's own borders through most of the Cold War.

whereas the US was subtle.

The US invaded dozens of countries.

If the USSR had never existed there would of been no need for such economic imperialism because there would be no foe threatening to take over the world.

You mean, no foe threatening to keep the United States from taking over the world?

Not only that, but even when Britain, US and USSR agreed upon a nuclear freeze the USSR continued developing weapons and put the rest of the world in danger.

So did America. And we got pissed at Russia for having nukes in Cuba even while we had a huge nuclear stockpile in Turkey.

And look at what government those third-world countries tend to be........Oh my, all socialism.

Name any?

That's satisfactory to me. I would rather live in a world dominated by the US than the USSR.

No, you'd rather lived in a world dominated by Nazi Germany.

So was the US.

Panama
Korea
Vietnam
Cuba
Iran
Guatemala
Egypt
Dominican Republic
Laos
Cambodia
Angola
Greece
Mozambic

Shall I go on?

Pretty fucking well of huh? I guess that's why so many of them left the east and migrated to the west.

Only because they're the only one's the Western MEedia ever talks about.

The reason the Russian Mafia came to power was because of the Soviet Government.

The Soviet government actually kept the Mafia tame; ever since the fall they;ve tripled in power

No assassination: no provocation for the war.

The war would have come in it's own time anyway; Austria-Hungary was waiting for ANY reason to annex Serbia

JakeHero
JakeHero
  • Member since: May. 30, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Blank Slate
Response to Best Form Of Government? 2006-12-07 22:44:16 Reply

At 12/7/06 09:59 PM, altanese-mistress wrote: Then explain Russia from the end of the Napoleonic Wars all the way up to the end of the First Great World War? You seem to imply that ANY system would let Russia rise to power, so why not an aristocratic monarchy?

You ignored what I said. I said the reason Russia did well under Lenin was because it nio longer had to suffer the incompetence and lackadaisical folly of the monarchy. Lenin had ambition and utilized all Russia's resources, whereas the tsars just left it untapped. It was basically the same case of how the injuns worshipping nature instead of using it until the pilgrims came to New England.

Florida has the rest of the Union to rebuild it,

The subsidies it gets from the Federal Government is meager at best and yet its industries go unabated.

and Mexico is way worse off than Cuba even in the calmer seasons.

This is actually untrue. Mexico has a great steel and oil industry, but the people live in poverty. Also, hurricanes only happen so often and would not significantly impede Cuba's progress. Cuba is dirt poor because of its current system.

Oh, I get it; you're a Nazi.

Can't say I am. Most nazi would consider me inferior and nazism doesn't sit well with me because I never thought much of the Aryan people. Nothing but a bunch of barbarians.

He specifically stated; many times; that he wanted every Non-Aryan to be enslaved and eventually exterminated. Ever read Mein Kamph?

Could you provide an exerpt? And no, I've never read Mein Kampf; it wasn't required literature at my highschool.

He was from a very mixed background; Russian, Swedish, German, Jewish, and many others.

He was of jewish ancestry, which by technicality makes him partially one, correct? Your point is worthless.

You're basically saying that humans are incapable of compassion and empathy unless they are directly effected. Typical capitalist and Nazi thinking.

Actually, humans are more monstrous than anything, and no, I was not implying these things, perhaps you should work on your reading-comprehension. I merely said the only reason Lenin worked to abolish these things was because he would be condemned by such a school of thought. He did not work to abolish them as a result of outstanding moral character, moreso of him wanting to be rid of a system that insults him for his blood.

Please don't confuse Stalin with Lenin. And the only reason anyone died under Lenin was because it was a time of both World War and Civil War, in both cases major powers from around the world are trying to destroy all that you and your people have worked for.

Yeah, I guess political assassination is justified then. I guess you could empathize with Pinochet then, since he worked to be rid of political dissidents that threatened to destroy the system he worked for.

this bitch's hypocrisy is staggering.
So you're saying that Mao Tse-Tung and Joseph Stalin and Ho Chi Mihn and Pol Pot and Kim Il-Sung etc. etc. were all better than Lenin? All of these people were out for themselves, nothing like Lenin. Lenin was a true hero of the people, and wanted not for his own personal gain, but rather the greater good of the working class.

Once again your reading comprehension fails you. You stated that Russia at the time of Lenin's dictatorship was true socialism. So I rhetorically and sarcasticly responded by saying I guess that's why the Communist leadership in the USSR was so quick to reshape it after Lenin's death to Stalinism; had it been such a perfect model of socialism.

That happens in any revolution, especially when considering that major world powers fel compelled to get involved.

Actually, anyone in the middle class and upperclasses are targetted and butchered like cattle. Ever heard of kulaks? These people(communists) are violent monsters and only emulate the most depraved of human nature.

Because there is no communist nation. But there are nations slowly evolving into socialism; the UK, Germany, Sweden, Canada. Just to name a few.

Not really. They're pretty content with the mixed economics they already have. People (including China) are begining to realize mixed economics with capitalist elements are superior to oneway and feeble socialism.

I also linked the NBP's homepage.

I didn't look at it because I'm pretty sure all it would do is give me biographical info.

All third parties are just shams; utter frauds.

My point is anyone can run regardless of politics. Not whether or not a person can run on any platform and win.

And thats such a great bias you have against the Democratic party.

I hate what harms the US: dems fit that role.

The first two would get you arrested anywhere, but you CAN publically call for the death of a political figure.

Oh yeah? Prove it. Show me in the law of these nations where they can call upon the death of a person.

1) 'democratical'?

My apologies. I didn't bother to proof read my posts since I don't feel to fervently about this argument.

2) Because even if more people vote for canidate A, canidate B could still win because s/he got more electoral votes.

You got me there.

I only admit that is too perfect for humans today, and we must evolve past our greed in order for it to work.

Oh man, this actually made me chuckle.

This REALLY doesn't help your argument. But then again you're a Nazi, so your argument is tetering death anyways.

Believe it or not the prodominate religion of a nation can affect the success of it. Don't measure me by your multiculturism bullshit.

Capitalism has been around since ancient times
Modern capitalism came about only a couple centuries ago. Free market isn't the same as capitalism.

Capitalism is synonym for freemarket, missy.

The USSR was kept inside of it's own borders through most of the Cold War.
The US invaded dozens of countries.

Way to show your revisionist side, bitch.

You mean, no foe threatening to keep the United States from taking over the world?

There's no USSR today and the US hasn't taken over the world? Face it, the USSR was a monster and the US was the slayer of the beast.

So did America. And we got pissed at Russia for having nukes in Cuba even while we had a huge nuclear stockpile in Turkey.

You fucking kidding me? The US and Britain actually did honor the treaty. Russians continued to hone nuclear technology to gain the edge. That's the reason they have some many nukes today.

And look at what government those third-world countries tend to be........Oh my, all socialism.
Name any?

Every Oriental nation except Taiwan and Thailand.

No, you'd rather lived in a world dominated by Nazi Germany.

I would rather have Nazi Germany than Soviet Russia - so yes.

Shall I go on?

About what?

Only because they're the only one's the Western MEedia ever talks about.

Not really. Infact, the migration problem got so bad for the Soviets they had to build a number of walls and place centuries to keep people from leaving the bloc. Ever heard of the Berlin Wall?

The Soviet government actually kept the Mafia tame; ever since the fall they;ve tripled in power

Another bullshit statements. The reason the Russia Mafia came to power was because of the Soviet Government. Because of all the food and medicine shortages in the Soviet Union it opened a black market for the Russian Mafia to be a monopoly in the USSR. Because of the systems inadequate handling of its people the citizens were willing to go to any entity to acquire such supplies. The longer the reign of the USSR the longer the germination of the Russian Mafia.

The war would have come in it's own time anyway; Austria-Hungary was waiting for ANY reason to annex Serbia

Any reason? I thought the war was the result of capitalism. Changing our stories now?


BBS Signature
AngelCommunist
AngelCommunist
  • Member since: Dec. 3, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 03
Blank Slate
Response to Best Form Of Government? 2006-12-07 23:36:22 Reply

Communism is the best ideal. I think we should just leave it at that.

cellardoor6
cellardoor6
  • Member since: Apr. 4, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 20
Blank Slate
Response to Best Form Of Government? 2006-12-07 23:49:53 Reply

At 12/7/06 11:36 PM, AngelCommunist wrote: Communism is the best ideal. I think we should just leave it at that.

Man you're a complete freaking imbecile. Just seriously kill yourself.

You and all the other jackasses who really know NOTHING, yet continue to support communism are just mindless, worthless little children with vivid imaginations.

End your life.


Yay, Obama won. Let's thank his supporters:
-The compliant mainstream media for their pro-Obama propaganda.
-Black Panthers for their intimidation of voters.

BBS Signature
altanese-mistress
altanese-mistress
  • Member since: Mar. 25, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 03
Blank Slate
Response to Best Form Of Government? 2006-12-08 07:28:35 Reply

At 12/7/06 10:44 PM, BanditByte wrote: You ignored what I said. I said the reason Russia did well under Lenin was because it nio longer had to suffer the incompetence and lackadaisical folly of the monarchy.

Right, but why wouldn't they tap into these vast resources?

This is actually untrue. Mexico has a great steel and oil industry, but the people live in poverty.

Why would they live in poverty if they have such a great economy?

Also, hurricanes only happen so often and would not significantly impede Cuba's progress.

Not just hurricanes; droughts are also frequent, and when you put those two together it's agrarian economy really suffers.

Can't say I am. Most nazi would consider me inferior and nazism doesn't sit well with me because I never thought much of the Aryan people. Nothing but a bunch of barbarians.

Okay, so you seem to dislike white people, and think that some people are genetically superior. Which race are you?

Could you provide an exerpt?

"I recognize the representatives of this race as pestilent for the state and for the church and perhaps I am thereby doing Christianity a great service by pushing them out of schools and public functions."

"The personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew"

"Jesus fought against the materialism of His age, and, therefore, against the Jews."

"He set out to kill people not for what they did but for who they were. Even Mao and Stalin were killing their 'class enemies.' Hitler killed a million Jewish babies just for existing." -Time

And no, I've never read Mein Kampf; it wasn't required literature at my highschool.

You only read books when you're forced too? No suprise there.

He was of jewish ancestry, which by technicality makes him partially one, correct?

That doesn't mean he didn't do it out of compassion for his fellow man.

I merely said the only reason Lenin worked to abolish these things was because he would be condemned by such a school of thought.

If that were true he would have never even risen to power in the first place. He freed the serfs, drove out the Czars, gave land to the poor, and tried to stamp out racial and religious intolerance, all out of kindness, not personal gain.

this bitch's hypocrisy is staggering.

Why attempt to hide your insults?

So I rhetorically and sarcasticly responded by saying I guess that's why the Communist leadership in the USSR was so quick to reshape it after Lenin's death to Stalinism; had it been such a perfect model of socialism.

Exactly. Those people were out for personal gain, and socialism doesn't allow for that especially not in leaders. Thus, they did away with Leninism and formed Stalinism and Maoism.

Actually, anyone in the middle class and upperclasses are targetted and butchered like cattle.

As opposed to the working class being treated as slaves or wage slaves and toiled to the breaking point?

These people(communists) are violent monsters and only emulate the most depraved of human nature.

I would expect that from a Nazi, or whatever racial supremicist group based on the NDASP you adhere to; you hate the communists as an evil plague apon the world.

Not really. They're pretty content with the mixed economics they already have.

Then why are they still moving towards socialism? Even the more right-wing parties in many of these nations think socialism is a good thing.

Socialism is a natural evolution in human society, just as we evolved from Feudalism to Capitalism.

I didn't look at it

Of course you didn't.

My point is anyone can run regardless of politics. Not whether or not a person can run on any platform and win.

And if there is 0 chance of winning, are they really running?

I hate what harms the US: dems fit that role.

And the Republicans; who have time and time again dragged the US into unpopular war and advocated social inequality; are better?

Show me in the law of these nations where they can call upon the death of a person.

There is no law about it; thats the point. They have true freedom of speech. Sure, there could be social backlashes, but never ones administered by the government.

Oh man, this actually made me chuckle.

Mind actually refuting claims instead of posting half-assed statements which have nothing to do with the argument?

Believe it or not the prodominate religion of a nation can affect the success of it.

That is utter bull. We have seen nearly every religion throughout history (excluding those formed in the New Age movements) rise to prominance through nations, not the other way around.

Don't measure me by your multiculturism bullshit.

Yes, curse me for tolerating people and believing that all humans should be treated fairly.

Capitalism is synonym for freemarket

No; if one can buy and sell whatever they want at a marketplace, then that is free-market. The next step up is having industries and corporations so big that they can determine market rules for the maket on a much larger scale.

You fucking kidding me? The US and Britain actually did honor the treaty.

Which treaty? SALT I? SALT II? Partial Test Ban Treaty?

Russians continued to hone nuclear technology to gain the edge. That's the reason they have some many nukes today.

Wait; advance nuclear technology, or stockpile nukes?

Every Oriental nation except Taiwan and Thailand.

So Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, India, etc. are all socialist?

I would rather have Nazi Germany than Soviet Russia - so yes.

Exactly.

About what?

Nations the United States 'liberated' in the Cold War.

Ever heard of the Berlin Wall?

The sole reason it was built was to keep the Americans, British, and French out of West Berlin so that it would eventually be starved (economically) into submission.

Another bullshit statements. The reason the Russia Mafia came to power was because of the Soviet Government.

The Russian Mafia has existed for centuries; long before the Russian Revolution. And during the Soviet Era, especially under Stalin, the Mafia was only a minor nusience.

Because of all the food and medicine shortages in the Soviet Union it opened a black market for the Russian Mafia to be a monopoly in the USSR.

You're thinking of Russia and the rest of East Europe solely from the 90s onward.

Any reason? I thought the war was the result of capitalism. Changing our stories now?

The indirect causes of the war were all capitalist; expanding industry, colonialism, militarism (in order to keep order in the colonies and at home), nationalism (to ensure the people that they were right in their exploitation of others), etc.

Like I said before, political assassination in the Balkans during this period was as common as a rainy day. Archduke Ferdinand was assassinated by the Black Hand, which was a Serbian nationalist group, therefore Austria-Hungary gave Serbia an ultimatum; allow military forces to investigate (therein occupying the nation) or go to war. The latter happened, and Russia stepped in to help it's Slavic brothers. Germany had a military pact with Austria-Hungary in case of war with Russia, and Britian and France had a military pact with Russia in case of war with Germany.

Although I admit that I forget how the Ottoman Empire was dragged in, but I know it was due to hatred against Russia as well as a dispute with them over Armenia.

JakeHero
JakeHero
  • Member since: May. 30, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Blank Slate
Response to Best Form Of Government? 2006-12-08 16:02:24 Reply

At 12/8/06 07:28 AM, altanese-mistress wrote: Right, but why wouldn't they tap into these vast resources?

I guess I'll have to break down everything for you, the tsars didn't care about Russia's place in the world. As long as they remained at the top of the political ladder they were content. They had no ambition about expanding the grandeur and as a result Russia didn't ascend to prominance until new leadership with actual ambition took over.

Why would they live in poverty if they have such a great economy?

Well, because the aristocrats keep all the money. - Obviously

Not just hurricanes; droughts are also frequent, and when you put those two together it's agrarian economy really suffers.

Lol, a drought in the tropics. Are you making up shit as you go? Also, Cuba and Florida aren't very far away and Florida doesn't suffer from drought. So would Cuba? Once again, Cuba sucks because of that idiot leader of theres.

Okay, so you seem to dislike white people, and think that some people are genetically superior. Which race are you?

Aryans weren't white, infact, they hailed from the Deccan Plateau.

"I recognize the representatives of this race as pestilent for the state and for the church and perhaps I am thereby doing Christianity a great service by pushing them out of schools and public functions."

"The personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew"

"Jesus fought against the materialism of His age, and, therefore, against the Jews."

"He set out to kill people not for what they did but for who they were. Even Mao and Stalin were killing their 'class enemies.' Hitler killed a million Jewish babies just for existing." -Time

I asked you to provide an exerpt where Hitler welcomes the open extermination of a race, not his pms about one.

You only read books when you're forced too? No suprise there.

Some people are too stupid to even decern when a person is being facetious......

That doesn't mean he didn't do it out of compassion for his fellow man.

Lenin didn't really give a shit. He showed how compassionate he was by killing people for only being above the financial waterline.

If that were true he would have never even risen to power in the first place. He freed the serfs, drove out the Czars, gave land to the poor, and tried to stamp out racial and religious intolerance, all out of kindness, not personal gain.

No, he only did this because he was at the bottom of the social ladder. In all truth he was a self-righteous asshole. If he had been among the Tsars I doubt he would of even lifted a finger. You sucking this guy's cock is begining to grate my nerves.

Why attempt to hide your insults?

I didn't hide that insult. Your hypocrisy is overwhelming because you try to justify Lenin's genocide by saying the people he killed would threaten the form of government he just established. I retorted that Pinochet was justified in that sense because the socialist he locked up and tortured threatened his recently formed government, however, I knew you would never support Pinochet for his actions because he was a capitalist. So I called you out on what you were: a hypocritical bitch.

Exactly. Those people were out for personal gain, and socialism doesn't allow for that especially not in leaders. Thus, they did away with Leninism and formed Stalinism and Maoism.

And this only proves my point of how impossible communism is. People are corrupt and won't get anymore morally superior. Such a train of thought is idiocy in a prime.

As opposed to the working class being treated as slaves or wage slaves and toiled to the breaking point?

People have their station. The ironic thing is you defend this guys revolution despite you, yourself would be killed by it because of your financial position.

I would expect that from a Nazi,

The nazi retort is getting old. Since it only proves you can not longer refute my points and engage in ad-hominem.

or whatever racial supremicist group based on the NDASP you adhere to; you hate the communists as an evil plague apon the world.

Communists are the result of a man fucking a donkey.
.

Then why are they still moving towards socialism? Even the more right-wing parties in many of these nations think socialism is a good thing.

Another blanket statement: the current people in Europe are satisfied with their mixed economics and wouldn't dare jeopardize it by shifting either more to socialism or capitalism. Like I said, people like China are realizing economic primarily socialism-based harm them and need capitalist elements in order to compete in the world.

Socialism is a natural evolution in human society, just as we evolved from Feudalism to Capitalism.

I tend to think of socialism in the same light I think of coke that's lost its fizz.

And if there is 0 chance of winning, are they really running?

The point is anyone is able to run. Whether they be commies, fascists or nihilists they're capable of running. Not like in all these European, Asian and South American countries where you can only run if you fall into the one-sided thought of the culture.

And the Republicans; who have time and time again dragged the US into unpopular war and advocated social inequality; are better?

Every party has done its damage, but Democrat Senators actually aid America's enemies.

There is no law about it; thats the point. They have true freedom of speech. Sure, there could be social backlashes, but never ones administered by the government.

Either put up or shutup. In the US we have a defined right of speech. So I'm pretty sure these nations would too. So either recite to me the ruling of their highers courts are don't make bullshit statements like those foreign countries having a greater degree of speech.

Mind actually refuting claims instead of posting half-assed statements which have nothing to do with the argument?

Sorry, I thought your post was too stupid to warrant a reply and so I didn't. My apologies if you feel offended.

That is utter bull. We have seen nearly every religion throughout history (excluding those formed in the New Age movements) rise to prominance through nations, not the other way around.

Your statement is a rejection of reality. Ask any anthropologists if the primary religion of a peoples will affect their progression. I'll give you a few example, in the Indian religion of Hinduism they revere many animals as sacred such as cows and rats. The problem this induces it that cows are a major source of food, however hindus will not eat cows because they fear they may eat a reincarnated relative. So even when famine hits the region all the people starve to death rather than gorge upon beef whereas the cows are well-fed. Another problem is with rats: hindus will not exterminate rats for their supposed divinity even though rats are vermin that consume vast amounts of grain, reproduce like crazy and carry a myriad of diseases and infections.

Another such instance is with the religious belief of animism is the centers of Africa had kept the tribes there from thousands of years of progress. They believed manevolent spirits would reside within inanimate objects and would keep them from utilizing alot of natural resources and locations. This is in turn reduced the amount of advancement they made.

Yes, curse me for tolerating people and believing that all humans should be treated fairly.

Correction: Yes, curse me for tolerating people who agree with me and believing all humans (unless they're white christians) should be treated equally.

No; if one can buy and sell whatever they want at a marketplace, then that is free-market. The next step up is having industries and corporations so big that they can determine market rules for the maket on a much larger scale.

And how isn't this equal to capitalism? In capitalism there's no interference in business.


BBS Signature
JakeHero
JakeHero
  • Member since: May. 30, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Blank Slate
Response to Best Form Of Government? 2006-12-08 16:05:14 Reply

Which treaty? SALT I? SALT II? Partial Test Ban Treaty?

I forgot the name of it, but the details of it was a treaty signed in Moscow during 1963 by representatives of US, UK and the USSR. Of course the commie-cocksuckers didn't keep their end of the deal and continued to develop such weapons. This is where the term "Nuclear Blackmail" comes from.

Russians continued to hone nuclear technology to gain the edge. That's the reason they have some many nukes today.
Wait; advance nuclear technology, or stockpile nukes?

No, knowingly violate a treaty so they can strong-arm the west into supression and spread their mental illness of an ideology to the world without opposition.

Every Oriental nation except Taiwan and Thailand.
So Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, India, etc. are all socialist?

No, I mean every Oriental country will we have sweatshops in are socialist except those two.

Nations the United States 'liberated' in the Cold War.

It's a shame. Look at them today, all communist shitholes. America being too impassive is the problem.

The sole reason it was built was to keep the Americans, British, and French out of West Berlin so that it would eventually be starved (economically) into submission.

No one from the west was going over to the east, dipshit.

The Russian Mafia has existed for centuries; long before the Russian Revolution. And during the Soviet Era, especially under Stalin, the Mafia was only a minor nusience.

It was a minor nuisance because it didn't bite the hand that fed it. That was the USSR. Record profits were raked by the Russian Mafia during those times.

You're thinking of Russia and the rest of East Europe solely from the 90s onward.

Actually, east Europe was doing astronomically during the time whereas the USSR was suffering big time with a declining economy and widespread malcontent with its citizens. The USSR had to fight not only its foreign enemies but its own people at the time.

The indirect causes of the war were all capitalist; expanding industry, colonialism, militarism (in order to keep order in the colonies and at home), nationalism (to ensure the people that they were right in their exploitation of others), etc.

These charges don't have any relevance to powers wanting to fight wars.

In conclusion: religion is a mental illness whereas communism is insanity.


BBS Signature
iLLiCit-JmBd
iLLiCit-JmBd
  • Member since: Dec. 15, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 17
Blank Slate
Response to Best Form Of Government? 2007-01-10 18:35:39 Reply

I think i speak for every one here tremmy, communism is the best form of government this planet has ever seen.
soon the ashes of the soviet union will be rekindled, and will rule Russia again.

PS. bush sucks monkey balls

morefngdbs
morefngdbs
  • Member since: Mar. 7, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 49
Art Lover
Response to Best Form Of Government? 2007-01-11 10:21:15 Reply

I read this somewhere.
"The right of the majority to decide, with the right for the minority to be heard."
It pretty much sums up what I would wish for in a goverment.
although to make it work in practice is probably next to impossible.
But I think that's what democracy is suppose to be about.


Those who have only the religious opinions of others in their head & worship them. Have no room for their own thoughts & no room to contemplate anyone elses ideas either-More

Apollo
Apollo
  • Member since: Feb. 8, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 27
Blank Slate
Response to Best Form Of Government? 2007-01-11 11:52:36 Reply

I have to say Fascism minus nazismof course, it is the best form, and it's one of the most efficient forms of government.


BBS Signature
lordgarithose
lordgarithose
  • Member since: Jan. 9, 2007
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 04
Blank Slate
Response to Best Form Of Government? 2007-01-11 16:56:09 Reply

you play civilization. totally. good games too. i think democracy with capatalism is pretty good. its why america is so awesome today.

Mistertbones
Mistertbones
  • Member since: Nov. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 24
Blank Slate
Response to Best Form Of Government? 2007-01-12 19:12:15 Reply

I support a democracy, yet the leaders shouldn't be too powerful, that would cause trouble. I consider myself to actually be a conservative anarchist, as I believe in a limited government.

SyntheticTacos
SyntheticTacos
  • Member since: Dec. 31, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 04
Blank Slate
Response to Best Form Of Government? 2007-01-12 19:13:13 Reply

I personally have often wondered about the benefits of a Constitutional Robocracy

lordgarithose
lordgarithose
  • Member since: Jan. 9, 2007
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 04
Blank Slate
Response to Best Form Of Government? 2007-01-12 23:01:55 Reply

At 1/12/07 07:19 PM, Mercator wrote: But if you had to pick one or the other, would you pick

Fairness and Equality

Or

Freedom and Liberty

freedom and liberty. communist angel your and idiot you really are.i mean big deal if its fair or equal, what if every1 has just enough to feed themselves, pay for their home and all that crap. if every1 lives a sucky life, then i'd hate to live there. with freedom and liberty, if you have a talent of some kind or a vision then u can persue it, and if it works, u get rich. while if ur a communist u can do the same, only, with no reward. this means that nobody is going to want to do anything that takes effort, but would turn out great. not as good for the economy. wich means that the country gets less money. which means it doesn't grow as much, and the standard of living doesn't get as high either. so no, communism isn't as good.

JWaldGar
JWaldGar
  • Member since: May. 6, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 16
Blank Slate
Response to Best Form Of Government? 2007-01-12 23:49:22 Reply

Deomocratic Republic, look how well the system worked for Rome, until the transformation to the Roman Empire and the Pax Romana ended. Rome survived for a damn long time, even when it transformed into the Roman Empire it still had a lot of the same values, with the exception of an emperor. The emperors for the most part held the Roman Empire together for so long, of course there were bad leaders such as Nero. However, Rome overcame them and if it wasn't for greed, the Germanic people invading, civil war, and a decrease in population Rome would most likely still be around. The main problem was as the Empire began to fall, the Emperors became stricter, trying to hold the empire together, imposing heavy taxes and inforcing strict laws. This lowered moral and made matters worse. If the world based all their governments on the Roman Empire, in my opinion each nation would survive for a very long time.

YHWH
YHWH
  • Member since: Apr. 21, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Blank Slate
Response to Best Form Of Government? 2007-01-12 23:53:14 Reply

Free-Market Democratic Republic with Meritocratic tendencies.


The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars. But in ourselves, that we are underlings

SmilezRoyale
SmilezRoyale
  • Member since: Oct. 21, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 03
Blank Slate
Response to Best Form Of Government? 2007-01-12 23:53:29 Reply

At 12/1/06 07:45 PM, bigkahuna2020 wrote: Democracy, Communism, Republic, Tribalism, Anarchy, Capitalism, Dictatorship, Monarchy, Regional or Local, Totalitarian, or Transitional you decide or better yet rate each one.

Every government you listed could work perfectly if everyone agreed with that particular system of government, and the law system that it entailed.


On a moving train there are no centrists, only radicals and reactionaries.