Political Crossfire Forums

[social]

Preechr wrote: social wrote: NeedsREALfreedom wrote: social wrote: What makes me laugh about your silly rants against Marx is that they can be turned right round and directed (more appropriately) to your beloved administration...

:lol: My beloved administration.... :roll: Woo-hoo hoo, that's rich!!

A stranger to logic you may be, but even you should be able to recognise the sheer, monumental stupidity of supporting the actions of American government, and at the same time denouncing people who kill for a political stance. That spells H-Y-P--O--C--R--I--S-Y!

I thought all you socialists discounted the Bush administration as being inept. Now I see that you like to elevate the administration to the same high level as your vaunted philosophical hero. I can’t say that I agree with you but it is interesting to see how other people think. :-D

Actually, I wasn't attempting to equate socialism with the Bush administration, and attempted merely to point out that NeedsRealFreedom's argument smacked strongly of hypocrisy, and that his original premise, that Marxism is based on "killing for a political stance", was erroneous.

Quote: social wrote: NeedsREALfreedom wrote: social wrote: Tell me, is invading a soverreing nation and killing hundreds of thousands of people not based on a political stance? :shock:

Your very right, a Marxist aproach, indeed.

I suggest you attempt reading a little Marx before waging another asinine attack on his ideas. You'll only stop showing how woefully ill-informed you are and might, in the process, demonstrate that you are actually worth debating.
Besides, killing Marx wouldn’t have changed much. His ideas weren’t revolutionary so much as they were evolutionary. If it hadn’t been him, it would have been someone else.

I agree and, funnily enough, so would Marx!

[social]

John Wilkes Booth wrote: social wrote: NeedsREALfreedom wrote: First, time is unalterable. Suppose that someone went back to kill Hitler, there would always be something to prevent it, because time is a constant and our universe exists on a single time-line.

Second, If you could go back and kill someone, you could not predict the ramifications of what you're doing. Killing Hitler could prevent WW2 but it would put the soviets in the lead.

I take the Iraq War as an example. Nobody in the Bush administration had any idea that removing Saddam from power would result in the mess it is now, with the potential to spark yet another World War.

I think most people are aware that time travel is not possible.

I'm one of those people. What is the physics establishment incorrect about?

As I understand it, time travel has been entertained by some physicists who support Einstein's relativity, though it is not at this point possible.

[Preechr]

social wrote: Preechr wrote: social wrote: NeedsREALfreedom wrote: social wrote: What makes me laugh about your silly rants against Marx is that they can be turned right round and directed (more appropriately) to your beloved administration...

:lol: My beloved administration.... :roll: Woo-hoo hoo, that's rich!!

A stranger to logic you may be, but even you should be able to recognise the sheer, monumental stupidity of supporting the actions of American government, and at the same time denouncing people who kill for a political stance. That spells H-Y-P--O--C--R--I--S-Y!

I thought all you socialists discounted the Bush administration as being inept. Now I see that you like to elevate the administration to the same high level as your vaunted philosophical hero. I can’t say that I agree with you but it is interesting to see how other people think. :-D

Actually, I wasn't attempting to equate socialism with the Bush administration, and attempted merely to point out that NeedsRealFreedom's argument smacked strongly of hypocrisy, and that his original premise, that Marxism is based on "killing for a political stance", was erroneous.

Now that I’ve had a bit to think about it, there is a connection between Bushy Government and Marx: Leon Trotsky.

The connection between Marx and Trotsky is easy to see so I won’t spend any effort on it. The connection between Bush and Trotsky is in the NeoCon ideological influence. Founders of the American NeoCon movement, such as Irving Kristol, James Burnham, and Whittaker Cambers very proudly declared themselves as Trotskyites.

Bush drew ideological influence from the NeoCons
NeoCons drew ideological influence from Trotsky
Trotsky drew ideological influence from Marx

In short, I think I just accidentally proved your point of supporting Bush while condemning Marx. At the same time, Bush should be your new favorite president ever.

[John Wilkes Booth]

social wrote: John Wilkes Booth wrote: social wrote: NeedsREALfreedom wrote: First, time is unalterable. Suppose that someone went back to kill Hitler, there would always be something to prevent it, because time is a constant and our universe exists on a single time-line.

Second, If you could go back and kill someone, you could not predict the ramifications of what you're doing. Killing Hitler could prevent WW2 but it would put the soviets in the lead.

I take the Iraq War as an example. Nobody in the Bush administration had any idea that removing Saddam from power would result in the mess it is now, with the potential to spark yet another World War.

I think most people are aware that time travel is not possible.

I'm one of those people. What is the physics establishment incorrect about?

As I understand it, time travel has been entertained by some physicists who support Einstein's relativity, though it is not at this point possible.


You mean with our technology? Yes, you are right.

[social]

Preechr wrote: social wrote: Preechr wrote: social wrote: NeedsREALfreedom wrote: social wrote: What makes me laugh about your silly rants against Marx is that they can be turned right round and directed (more appropriately) to your beloved administration...

:lol: My beloved administration.... :roll: Woo-hoo hoo, that's rich!!

A stranger to logic you may be, but even you should be able to recognise the sheer, monumental stupidity of supporting the actions of American government, and at the same time denouncing people who kill for a political stance. That spells H-Y-P--O--C--R--I--S-Y!

I thought all you socialists discounted the Bush administration as being inept. Now I see that you like to elevate the administration to the same high level as your vaunted philosophical hero. I can’t say that I agree with you but it is interesting to see how other people think. :-D

Actually, I wasn't attempting to equate socialism with the Bush administration, and attempted merely to point out that NeedsRealFreedom's argument smacked strongly of hypocrisy, and that his original premise, that Marxism is based on "killing for a political stance", was erroneous.

Now that I’ve had a bit to think about it, there is a connection between Bushy Government and Marx: Leon Trotsky.

The connection between Marx and Trotsky is easy to see so I won’t spend any effort on it. The connection between Bush and Trotsky is in the NeoCon ideological influence. Founders of the American NeoCon movement, such as Irving Kristol, James Burnham, and Whittaker Cambers very proudly declared themselves as Trotskyites.

Bush drew ideological influence from the NeoCons
NeoCons drew ideological influence from Trotsky
Trotsky drew ideological influence from Marx

In short, I think I just accidentally proved your point of supporting Bush while condemning Marx. At the same time, Bush should be your new favorite president ever.

I find it incredibly hard to beleive that the supposed assertions of a few neocons - namely, that they are "Trotkyists" - constitutes an ideological link between neoconservatism and Marxism... Do you think calling yourself a Trotskyist actually makes you a Trotskyist? :lol:

[social]

Unfortunately, I find it all too common these days for Americans to blame the entire shortcomings of the Bush administration, and of similar administrations that preceeded them, on what appears to be their perrenial "other": communists....

Why don't you guys accept that, since the days of McCarthy, you've all been duped by insidous anti-communism propoganda, and that its clearly taking a toll on your ability to consider political issues clearly? Why else would someone even entertain the idea that the Bush administration is "communist", given that a communist society is meant (according to Marx) to be classless, which America today is clearly not and which the Soviet Union in the eighties clearly was not?

Political lesson #1: Don't beleive everything you read in the newspapers, or hear on Fox News for that matter...

[social]

soldierofchrist wrote: social wrote: soldierofchrist wrote: I'd probably take out Karl Marx.

Because you understand neither Marxism nor Marx?... Me thinks so.
President Reagan wrote: How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.
I understand Marxism. I understand it's a godawful philosophy that at it's very core is evil.

Clearly a considered, thoughtful comment. If I changed the word "Marxism" with the word "Conservativism", or "Anarchism", or "Libertaranism", I'd have what amounts to your average hollow assualt on an ideology; which in most cases says more about the person expressing it than about the ideology itself. Your words are empty.

[Preechr]

social wrote: Preechr wrote:

Now that I’ve had a bit to think about it, there is a connection between Bushy Government and Marx: Leon Trotsky.

The connection between Marx and Trotsky is easy to see so I won’t spend any effort on it. The connection between Bush and Trotsky is in the NeoCon ideological influence. Founders of the American NeoCon movement, such as Irving Kristol, James Burnham, and Whittaker Cambers very proudly declared themselves as Trotskyites.

Bush drew ideological influence from the NeoCons
NeoCons drew ideological influence from Trotsky
Trotsky drew ideological influence from Marx

In short, I think I just accidentally proved your point of supporting Bush while condemning Marx. At the same time, Bush should be your new favorite president ever.

I find it incredibly hard to beleive that the supposed assertions of a few neocons - namely, that they are "Trotkyists" - constitutes an ideological link between neoconservatism and Marxism... Do you think calling yourself a Trotskyist actually makes you a Trotskyist? :lol:
Obi-Wan never told you what happened to your father...

He told me enough... he told me you killed him.

No Social. I am your father.

No! It's not true! It's impossible!

Search your feelings... you know it to be true.


The origin and ideology of neocons…

[BobbyO]

Quote: social wrote: Unfortunately, I find it all too common these days for Americans to blame the entire shortcomings of the Bush administration, and of similar administrations that preceeded them, on what appears to be their perrenial "other": communists....

Why don't you guys accept that, since the days of McCarthy, you've all been duped by insidous anti-communism propoganda, and that its clearly taking a toll on your ability to consider political issues clearly? Why else would someone even entertain the idea that the Bush administration is "communist", given that a communist society is meant (according to Marx) to be classless, which America today is clearly not and which the Soviet Union in the eighties clearly was not?

Political lesson #1: Don't beleive everything you read in the newspapers, or hear on Fox News for that matter...

Given the murderous record of communism in the 20th century, I am not sure why it is "insidious" to be anti-communist. It seems quite reasonable.

And maybe Marx was wrong about how communism would evolve.

[social]

Preechr wrote: social wrote: Preechr wrote:

Now that I’ve had a bit to think about it, there is a connection between Bushy Government and Marx: Leon Trotsky.

The connection between Marx and Trotsky is easy to see so I won’t spend any effort on it. The connection between Bush and Trotsky is in the NeoCon ideological influence. Founders of the American NeoCon movement, such as Irving Kristol, James Burnham, and Whittaker Cambers very proudly declared themselves as Trotskyites.

Bush drew ideological influence from the NeoCons
NeoCons drew ideological influence from Trotsky
Trotsky drew ideological influence from Marx

In short, I think I just accidentally proved your point of supporting Bush while condemning Marx. At the same time, Bush should be your new favorite president ever.

I find it incredibly hard to beleive that the supposed assertions of a few neocons - namely, that they are "Trotkyists" - constitutes an ideological link between neoconservatism and Marxism... Do you think calling yourself a Trotskyist actually makes you a Trotskyist? :lol:
Obi-Wan never told you what happened to your father...

He told me enough... he told me you killed him.

No Social. I am your father.

No! It's not true! It's impossible!

Search your feelings... you know it to be true.


The origin and ideology of neocons…

I have to say this made me laugh my ass off!

[social]

BobbyO wrote: Quote: social wrote: Unfortunately, I find it all too common these days for Americans to blame the entire shortcomings of the Bush administration, and of similar administrations that preceeded them, on what appears to be their perrenial "other": communists....

Why don't you guys accept that, since the days of McCarthy, you've all been duped by insidous anti-communism propoganda, and that its clearly taking a toll on your ability to consider political issues clearly? Why else would someone even entertain the idea that the Bush administration is "communist", given that a communist society is meant (according to Marx) to be classless, which America today is clearly not and which the Soviet Union in the eighties clearly was not?

Political lesson #1: Don't beleive everything you read in the newspapers, or hear on Fox News for that matter...

Given the murderous record of communism in the 20th century, I am not sure why it is "insidious" to be anti-communist. It seems quite reasonable.

And maybe Marx was wrong about how communism would evolve.
The point I'm making is that communism as you see it isn't actually communism. It's Stalinism, Castroism, Moaism - whatever. This is why it annoys me to be labelled communist (in the negative sense of the word). I don't beleive in powerful government. I don't nor have I ever supported the USSR. I beleive in progressive change, a total lack of any form of government, widespread and general equality, and economic and political liberty. Call it what you will, but that's (as I see it) communism, and that's what the majority of communists actually beleive in, despite what your average American thinks.

[NeedsREALfreedom]

Phædrus wrote: That is precisely the point. They knew full well that there would be "unforeseen circumstances" - ie chaos. Perhaps the mess is bigger than foreseen, but it is precisely this kind of mess that jusifies US presence in this area of increasing strategic importance ... central Asia.

In my opinion, there was a deliberate decision after the collapse of Saddam's regime to allow the power vaccuum to fester for long enough to create a lengthy civil conflict. So I still take issue with your point that "nobody in the Bush administration had any idea that removing Saddam from power would result in the mess it is now" ... it is but a minor difference of opinion ....

I've been in complete agreement with you since the begining, I just didn't want to change the thread into a "What Neocons say and why they are liars" head-butting contest.

[NeedsREALfreedom]

social wrote: Actually, I wasn't attempting to equate socialism with the Bush administration, and attempted merely to point out that NeedsRealFreedom's argument smacked strongly of hypocrisy, and that his original premise, that Marxism is based on "killing for a political stance", was erroneous.

This guy, I tell you... :roll:

First off, in order to spare you the embarrassment of you furthering your foolery, I must inform you that I'm no Bush supporter. In fact, you'd be hard pressed to find someone that dislikes the republican party and their war more(not to say that I'm a big fan of democrats now-a-day).

Secondly, I don't need to read Marx(which I have) to know that Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot and Kim Il-sung and Kim Jong-il and Ho Chi Minh killed untold hundreds of millions. I don't even need a history book.

Because, when a society places the "rights" of the society against the rights of they individual, and then grants the communists any means to achieve this absolutely futile goal of a classless society, well... It doesn't exactly take a rocket scientist to figure out that a few hundred million are going to be murdered and the survivors will be slaves. No, no, anyone with functioning neurons would tell you that, including Marx himself.

Now I don't believe in corporatism and I believe that there are some inequities that must be undone or lessened. I just don't think that vile, murderous fanaticism like communism is the answer.

[enlightedsoldier]

chuck norris

[social]

NeedsREALfreedom wrote: social wrote: Actually, I wasn't attempting to equate socialism with the Bush administration, and attempted merely to point out that NeedsRealFreedom's argument smacked strongly of hypocrisy, and that his original premise, that Marxism is based on "killing for a political stance", was erroneous.

This guy, I tell you... :roll:

First off, in order to spare you the embarrassment of you furthering your foolery, I must inform you that I'm no Bush supporter. In fact, you'd be hard pressed to find someone that dislikes the republican party and their war more(not to say that I'm a big fan of democrats now-a-day).

Secondly, I don't need to read Marx(which I have) to know that Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot and Kim Il-sung and Kim Jong-il and Ho Chi Minh killed untold hundreds of millions. I don't even need a history book.

Because, when a society places the "rights" of the society against the rights of they individual, and then grants the communists any means to achieve this absolutely futile goal of a classless society, well... It doesn't exactly take a rocket scientist to figure out that a few hundred million are going to be murdered and the survivors will be slaves. No, no, anyone with functioning neurons would tell you that, including Marx himself.

Now I don't believe in corporatism and I believe that there are some inequities that must be undone or lessened. I just don't think that vile, murderous fanaticism like communism is the answer.

And that's your take on Marx? An argument that suggests communism is flawed because it ignores the rights of the individual?

To get something perfectly clear here, not only have you misrepresented perhaps everything Marx has said regarding communist societies (which is, for the record, very little), but you've also completely muddled class theory. You see, Marx argued that there are certain class interests - that is, the common interests of individuals part of the same economic class - and certain individual interests, which should not be derived from, or compared to, class interests. The former are by far the most important aspect of an individual's life, since by way of contrast to the latter they concern how the individual relates to the means of production, and therefore how individuals are united in class struggle, the most important social determinant in history. Despite different, even conflicting, individual interests, everyone has similar class interests. The working classes, for example, get paid a wage as opposed to pay wages, which unites them, or at least should do, in opposition to the ruling classes, the bourgousie, the elite - whoever - in class struggle.

So, how does this affect your individual rights argument? It completely knocks it down, that's how. It suggests that your notion of individual rights is itself incoherent. In suggesting that "the rights of the society are placed against the rights of the individual", you've conflated (muddled, if you like) an individual's economic rights, his class rights, with his individual (personal) rights. Marx never said that. Communism, as he describes it, doesn't require that. Communism is the end result of thesis, anti-thesis and synthesis: the point in history when a suburdinated class recognises its place in relation to the means of production, rejects the exploitation on which this has been based, and casts aside its chains (as Marx would have it). It is the point when a subordinate class unites and works together for the same, mutual class interest in, would you beleive it, what effectivly amounts to a classeless society. This is not, lest I have to repeat myself, a society with only one individual interest.

[social]

enlightedsoldier wrote: chuck norris

Bruce Lee.

[mattwa33193]

I'd kill whoever invented dumbass questions.

[NobleOne]

mattwa33193 wrote: I'd kill whoever invented dumbass questions.

I'd kill whoever answers dumbass questions.

[mattwa33193]

NobleOne wrote: mattwa33193 wrote: I'd kill whoever invented dumbass questions.

I'd kill whoever answers dumbass questions.

LOL

[hairlikeafox]

Myself, In George Washingtons bedroom, dressed as a prostitute. I think they need a nice good concpiracy as to why a dead prostitute is found there.


(I was told to join this site for the soul purpose of posting my answer)