PDA

View Full Version : Capitalism/ Business = Liberty



Pechorin
02-08-2008, 12:51
well, in Russia you can see it in everyday life. Thanks to investment bankers, accountants, lawyers and management consultants, ordinary Russians are pretty free. They can go overseas for their holidays, everyone has a cell phone, many people can now afford a nice car and apartment, and Russians have both McDonalds and IKEA.

Meanwhile, in the socialist dream paradise of Cuba, only this year - 2008 - has the government decreed that ordinary people may buy cellphones, if they have enough American dollars that is. What a miserable place, it people crushed under the idiotic doctrines beloved my parlor intellectuals and tyrants.

Meanwhile, the Chinese are being liberated as well by us businessmen:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/02/world/asia/02china.html?ref=asia

Korotky Gennady
02-08-2008, 15:06
These statements are almost quite untrue :vomit: becoz majority of russians had more high quality of life in the years of USSR than they have it now... Almost every russian can confirm it.

In fact even life span of soveit people was about ten years more than the life span of the russians is now... There is the science... man. It's called statistics.

Statistics beats all american propaganda fables !

Korotky Gennady
02-08-2008, 15:24
ПРОДОЛЖИТЕЛЬНОСТЬ ЖИЗНИ РОССИЙСКИХ МУЖЧИН - САМАЯ НИЗКАЯ В ЕВРОПЕ



"В настоящее время показатель ожидаемой продолжительности жизни мужчин в России самый низкий в Европе", - говорится в материалах Федеральной службы государственной статистики (Росстат), поступивших в РИА "Новости".
Среднестатистический житель России мужского пола живет 58,8 года, в то время как на Украине - 62,6. У российских женщин показатель ожидаемой продолжительности жизни, по данным Росстата, составляет 72 года. Ниже показатели только в Турции - 71 год и Молдавии - 71,6.
По продолжительности жизни мужчин Россия занимает 134-е место в мире, а женщин - 100-е место. Об этом сообщил министр здравоохранения и социального развития РФ Михаил Зурабов.


:fireworks:

----------------------------------------------------------------
для справки

Средняя продолжительность жизни на Кубе — 78 лет (выше только в Японии), детская смертность — ниже, чем в США (!), низкие показатели смерти от рака и инфаркта, а произведённые в местных лабораториях вакцины охотно раскупаются за рубежом. Тысячи кубинских специалистов-медиков работают по всей Латинской Америке, осуществляя бесплатную госпрограмму Помощь беднякам.

Korotky Gennady
02-08-2008, 15:54
Capitalism/ Business = Poverty

Poverty in the United States refers to people living in poverty in the U.S. Within the U.S. the most common measure of poverty is the "poverty line" set by the U.S. government. The official poverty threshold is adjusted for inflation using the consumer price index. Poverty in the United States is cyclical in nature with roughly 12% to 16% living below the federal poverty line at any given point in time, and roughly 40% falling below the poverty line at some time within a 10 year time span.[1] While there remains some controversy of whether or not the official poverty over or understates poverty, the United States has some of the highest absolute and relative pre and post-transfer, poverty rates in the developed world.[2][3] Overall, the U.S. ranks 12th on the Human Poverty Index.[4]

Those under the age of 18 were the most likely to be impoverished. In 2006 the poverty rate for minors in the United States was the highest in the industrialized world, with 21.9% of all minors and 30% of African American minors living below the poverty threshold.[5] Moreover, the standard of living for those in the bottom 10% was lower in the U.S. than in any other developed nation except the United Kingdom, which had the lowest standard of living for impoverished children.[6]

Poverty in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:DVC07473.JPG" class="image"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/c6/DVC07473.JPG/250px-DVC07473.JPG"@@AMEPARAM@@en/thumb/c/c6/DVC07473.JPG/250px-DVC07473.JPG

Pechorin
02-08-2008, 18:21
well, the poverty line in the US is 10,400 for one person. What is the average icome in Russia? Less than the US poverty line. And that's after 9 years of economic growth. And I do not any single Russian who would seriously want to go back to USSR. Hey, go the Cuban Embassy sometime and see how many people are lining up for visas to Cuba. Except maybe for guys who want to go find some very cheap pussy which only US dollars will buy. Cuba - socialist paradise where any foreign guy with a few US dollars can buy any girl he wants.

Willy
02-08-2008, 19:15
well, the poverty line in the US is 10,400 for one person. What is the average icome in Russia? Less than the US poverty line. And that's after 9 years of economic growth. And I do not any single Russian who would seriously want to go back to USSR. Hey, go the Cuban Embassy sometime and see how many people are lining up for visas to Cuba. Except maybe for guys who want to go find some very cheap pussy which only US dollars will buy. Cuba - socialist paradise where any foreign guy with a few US dollars can buy any girl he wants.


Dude pretty soon Russians will be lining up to go to the U.S. and get cheap pu$$y. As I remember it was always free there anyway.


Your dollars ain't buying as much pu$$y as they used to.

People here now talk in euros, the Canadian dollar is worth more.


Did you just get here? You still have that arrogance about you.

The white god thing wears off after a few years of Russians showing you how dumb you really are. It depends on how arrogant you are and by reading your post I think it may take you longer than most.

Transparent Theatre
02-08-2008, 20:07
http://www.librodearena.com/myfiles/beatrizatxa/Do-not-feed-the-troll.PNG

DDT
02-08-2008, 21:32
Did you just get here? You still have that arrogance about you.

The white god thing wears off after a few years of Russians showing you how dumb you really are. It depends on how arrogant you are and by reading your post I think it may take you longer than most.

Maybe it is just that you have been here too long! Or is that Westerners who say that they love Russia, only say that because they know that they can leave any time they want.

And don't kid yourself, Russia is not exactly an example of freedom. Reforms were never really implemented. Sure, there is an outward appearance of democracy but no real reforms. Elections? They don't have them! How many countries issue Internal Passports to their citizens? Check it out sometime. You can thank that bastard Stalin for that. The way this country is going the cold war will be back openly soon. Covertly, things haven't changed that much.
You can blame it all on the average Russian, who is happy with what ever is handed to them and too lazy or ignorant to want to make their country better. How many times do you hear them say, 'Oh, that's just the way it is in Russia."? Too happy to watch their favorite Putin owned news station telling them that anyone who complains about things and wants reform has just been influenced by evil American propaganda.

Judge
02-08-2008, 21:41
How many countries issue Internal Passports to their citizens? Check it out sometime.

Many countries issue ID cards,its the same thing just like an Internal Passport..Even the British government wants to issue id cards .

ultimotattie
02-08-2008, 23:19
Maybe it is just that you have been here too long! Or is that Westerners who say that they love Russia, only say that because they know that they can leave any time they want.

And don't kid yourself, Russia is not exactly an example of freedom. Reforms were never really implemented. Sure, there is an outward appearance of democracy but no real reforms. Elections? They don't have them! How many countries issue Internal Passports to their citizens? Check it out sometime. You can thank that bastard Stalin for that. The way this country is going the cold war will be back openly soon. Covertly, things haven't changed that much.
You can blame it all on the average Russian, who is happy with what ever is handed to them and too lazy or ignorant to want to make their country better. How many times do you hear them say, 'Oh, that's just the way it is in Russia."? Too happy to watch their favorite Putin owned news station telling them that anyone who complains about things and wants reform has just been influenced by evil American propaganda.

Weren't there internal passports during the imperial era of Russian history? Although they were modified so that they were not obligatory after the rise of the Bolsheviks, it would have been nigh on impossible to oversee anyway due to the state of the country up until the NEP had really kicked in. Stalin did bring them back, but it was a re-introduction rather than a new idea.

Willy
02-08-2008, 23:40
Maybe it is just that you have been here too long! Or is that Westerners who say that they love Russia, only say that because they know that they can leave any time they want.

And don't kid yourself, Russia is not exactly an example of freedom. Reforms were never really implemented. Sure, there is an outward appearance of democracy but no real reforms. Elections? They don't have them! How many countries issue Internal Passports to their citizens? Check it out sometime. You can thank that bastard Stalin for that. The way this country is going the cold war will be back openly soon. Covertly, things haven't changed that much.
You can blame it all on the average Russian, who is happy with what ever is handed to them and too lazy or ignorant to want to make their country better. How many times do you hear them say, 'Oh, that's just the way it is in Russia."? Too happy to watch their favorite Putin owned news station telling them that anyone who complains about things and wants reform has just been influenced by evil American propaganda.


You are just a number dude.

If the cops in the U.S. ever stop you they ask you for ID no?

You give them your S.S. number if you don't have a drivers license right?

You are nobody in America without that number!

They control you by controlling your money.

If your bad they take some away, if you don't have any they take you away.

I like it here, nobody cares how you live or if you die.

So there's not a lot of " do gooders" going around telling people what to do and how to live.

Just the freedom from people like that is reason enough to stay here.


If you think you've won something, even though nothing is over yet, and like doing your victory dance and gettin all in some'ns face. well that's just not very sporting is it?


We've all been watching America's financial wizardry at it's finest lately.


Sorry dude but Russia has more than markets it has more resources than any other country.

Korotky Gennady
03-08-2008, 01:38
And don't kid yourself, Russia is not exactly an example of freedom. Reforms were never really implemented. Sure, there is an outward appearance of democracy but no real reforms. Elections? They don't have them! How many countries issue Internal Passports to their citizens? Check it out sometime. You can thank that bastard Stalin for that. The way this country is going the cold war will be back openly soon. Covertly, things haven't changed that much.
You can blame it all on the average Russian, who is happy with what ever is handed to them and too lazy or ignorant to want to make their country better. How many times do you hear them say, 'Oh, that's just the way it is in Russia."? Too happy to watch their favorite Putin owned news station telling them that anyone who complains about things and wants reform has just been influenced by evil American propaganda.


Maybe can't you understand something really ? In fact I don't give a f..ck about your beloved Putin who bothers you much... And I don't give a f..ck about Stalin (becoz it all was too far in the past ) and so on... It all is becoz I'm just a ordinary employee and I'm sure that you know that many russians work now in the states and in Germany... So can you be so kind to tell me in what things these russians who work abroad are more free than I am here ? And why did you leave the western free world in order to live here in Russia ?

What is the difference for me... whether to work here or to work there or to work anywhere ?


I asked Orion many times about it already... In what are he and the other expats more free than I am here ? And I haven't got the answer...

DDT
03-08-2008, 09:49
You are just a number dude.

If the cops in the U.S. ever stop you they ask you for ID no?

You give them your S.S. number if you don't have a drivers license right?

You are nobody in America without that number!No your wrong. We are not required to carry identification of any kind or SS # in the USA. I have been riding with cops when they stop and ask someone for ID, and unless the cops are going to arrest that person for an actual law they broke, they just leave them be. If you were asked for your SS# you did not have to give it to them by law. Cops operate on a bluff system sometimes. It's still against the US Constitution to be required to carry ID. Your bank with ask you for SS# but that is your choice and agreement if you want to do business with them. It is possible to open an account without giving them the number. (Unless the Patriot Act has changed that, ) An SS# is only for tax and SS benefit purposes by Constitutional law. It will stay that way if people are vigil. Some states want SS# on their drivers license and people are fighting it. Ever see that? People fight the government in Russia?




I like it here, nobody cares how you live or if you die.

So there's not a lot of " do gooders" going around telling people what to do and how to live.

Just the freedom from people like that is reason enough to stay here.
Yeah, well it's ok temporarily but you will wish you were somewhere else when the shit hits the fan.

It's also some of the do-gooders who are the watch dogs of the government. When we lose them, we will lose our constitutional rights in the USA. You are right. There are few do gooder types here in Russia. So I can be politically incorrect and I can drink beer on the street. It has its good points. But it also means that nobody gives a shit about making this place any better. That's why Russia is listed by freedom watch organizations as "Not Free".

DDT
03-08-2008, 10:10
Maybe can't you understand something really ? In fact I don't give a f..ck about your beloved Putin who bothers you much... And I don't give a f..ck about Stalin (becoz it all was too far in the past ) and so on... It all is becoz I'm just a ordinary employee and I'm sure that you know that many russians work now in the states and in Germany... So can you be so kind to tell me in what things these russians who work abroad are more free than I am here ? And why did you leave the western free world in order to live here in Russia ?

What is the difference for me... whether to work here or to work there or to work anywhere ?


I asked Orion many times about it already... In what are he and the other expats more free than I am here ? And I haven't got the answer...

Check the status of Russia, dude. "Not Free"
Politically or civil liberties. If you have never had something you won't know what you are missing.
freedomhouse.org: Map of Freedom in the World (http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=363&year=2008)

I suggest you read articles written by the Founding Fathers of the US

Willy
03-08-2008, 10:41
Maybe can't you understand something really ? In fact I don't give a f..ck about your beloved Putin who bothers you much... And I don't give a f..ck about Stalin (becoz it all was too far in the past ) and so on... It all is becoz I'm just a ordinary employee and I'm sure that you know that many russians work now in the states and in Germany... So can you be so kind to tell me in what things these russians who work abroad are more free than I am here ? And why did you leave the western free world in order to live here in Russia ?

What is the difference for me... whether to work here or to work there or to work anywhere ?


I asked Orion many times about it already... In what are he and the other expats more free than I am here ? And I haven't got the answer...


I would say your more free here, lovely country, lovely people, but to each his own.

Judge
03-08-2008, 11:05
I would say your more free here, lovely country, lovely people, but to each his own.

I agree... when one can get on a train and pitch a tent almost anywhere in this vast country is pure freedom for me.
Like Willy said, ''each to his own''.

Willy
03-08-2008, 11:32
Check the status of Russia, dude. "Not Free"
Politically or civil liberties. If you have never had something you won't know what you are missing.
freedomhouse.org: Map of Freedom in the World (http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=363&year=2008)

I suggest you read articles written by the Founding Fathers of the US


Dude your map is wrong. It says the U.S. is free. The place where they can lock you up and you have no right to call anyone or see a lawyer. They can deprive you of sleep, or air, and freedom just to get you to say what they want you to. And if your not with them your against them, what freedom do you have if you must join them? What ever happen to the pursuit of happiness? It seems to me that people there are always telling you the standard you must live up to, to be happy. Sorry I think freedom is a place where people don't care if your happy or not, that's totally up to YOU what happiness is.


Try being a Chicano in the U.S. with no ID.

Or worst Arab.

If your mom and dad just happen to be Mexican and even though you and they were born in the U.S. just the fact that you look the way you do and speak the way you speak is enough to get you deported if you don't have ID.


Why can't people have their own culture there? I mean if you want to be in buisness you have to wear a suit and tie and talk like white people right?
Where is the freedom in that? People always judging you (like you are now judging Russia) and they think they have a right.



You should read what the Founding Fathers of the US wrote.


I think you misunderstood.


Check the part where it says "All men were created equal" It doesn't say anything about the clothes you wear, how long your hair should be, how much money you need, or the standard you must live by.

But I guess it just comes down to what you think of as free, for me it's not having someone tell what it is. I'm free to decide that for myself.

kirk10071
03-08-2008, 11:58
Willy, be fair. Locking people up in definitely without trial is only for those people who are known (or pretty much known) to be guilty of something and even if we don't know what, exactly, they did, they themselves know so it works out.

If they weren't guilty, what were they doing where they got caught in the first place? ANSWER THE QUESTION, WILLY!! IF YOU HAVE NOTHING TO HIDE, WHY AREN'T YOU COOPERATING???

America is a country that values liberty and freedom and due process of law above all things, and your little speech back there is a threat to these values. Accordingly, please come to my office at 9 am on Monday and be prepared to explain yourself. Bring a change of underwear and a toothbrush. I hope you can explain to my satisfaction and to the satisfaction of my superiors so that we don't have to silence you in order to protect freedom.

Judge
03-08-2008, 12:04
Willy, be fair. Locking people up in definitely without trial is only for those people who are known (or pretty much known) to be guilty of something and even if we don't know what, exactly, they did, they themselves know so it works out.

If they weren't guilty, what were they doing where they got caught in the first place? ANSWER THE QUESTION, WILLY!! IF YOU HAVE NOTHING TO HIDE, WHY AREN'T YOU COOPERATING???

America is a country that values liberty and freedom and due process of law above all things, and your little speech back there is a threat to these values. Accordingly, please come to my office at 9 am on Monday and be prepared to explain yourself. Bring a change of underwear and a toothbrush. I hope you can explain to my satisfaction and to the satisfaction of my superiors so that we don't have to silence you in order to protect freedom.
Yes sir, right away Sir..9am it is..
I wouldn't like to be cross examined by you...:10641::10641::10641:

Please no water-boarding:10475::10475:

El_Desaparecido
03-08-2008, 12:12
And dont bring your Laptop. They can take it away from you, copy your hard disk, send the hard disk to your competing companies and then maybe give the machine back to you, or not, depends if they need one at the moment and in what mood they are in.

DDT
03-08-2008, 13:06
You guys are sick! You all know exactly what I'm talking about and yet you put on the air to the Russians on this forum that their country is freer to the effect that they will never try try to bring civil liberty or political reforms to Russia. Shame on you, because each of you knows that you can leave Russia when it no longer suits your fancy. Russia is just a zoo park for you!

This is the only thing I've read that is true, but it is also true of my birth country too, which is not USA BTW.

I agree... when one can get on a train and pitch a tent almost anywhere in this vast country is pure freedom for me.
Like Willy said, ''each to his own''.

Judge
03-08-2008, 13:25
You guys are sick! You all know exactly what I'm talking about and yet you put on the air to the Russians on this forum that their country is freer to the effect that they will never try try to bring civil liberty or political reforms to Russia. Shame on you, because each of you knows that you can leave Russia when it no longer suits your fancy. Russia is just a zoo park for you!



KG( A russian) is telling you himself that he feels free in his own country and so will many russians...

You are wrong, many of us can't pack up and leave when we feel like it... we have russian familes to think about..

Judge
03-08-2008, 15:05
Hey DDT. some people are even going all the way... Now this is what I call freedom..

Hammon defends decision to play for Russia | Reuters (http://uk.reuters.com/article/wtMostRead/idUKN3050530820080801)

Maybe my good buddy Putin will give me a free russian pasport..:idea::idea:

DDT
03-08-2008, 16:59
http://www.iea.ru/2/freedom.gif
(http://www.iea.ru/index.php)

Transparent Theatre
03-08-2008, 17:07
Freedom House - a US-Govt funded organisation.

Korotky Gennady
03-08-2008, 17:13
You all know exactly what I'm talking about and yet you put on the air to the Russians on this forum that their country is freer to the effect that they will never try try to bring civil liberty or political reforms to Russia.
.

Russia is just a zoo park for you!

.Unfortunately as I told you in my previous post I don't believe that you have more freedom there than I have here. I red a lot of books that our russian immigrants wrote about their life in America ( "Diary of Loser" of Eduard Limonov fo example) and I understood that life is the same everywhere... in America, in Russia, in Europe.

What civil rights do you have there which I don't have here ?... Please, inform me.

You have the right to vote and I have the same right. There are illegal immigrants here and there are illegal immigrants there. So...


And if Russia is a zoo park, why isn't America
a zoo park too ?

ultimotattie
03-08-2008, 17:15
The grass is always greener...

Korotky Gennady
03-08-2008, 17:16
Freedom House - a US-Govt funded organisation.It isn't clear how they form their Indexes...

Transparent Theatre
03-08-2008, 17:26
It isn't clear how they form their Indexes...

Oh, it's quite simple - they reduce the indexes in parallel with the temperature of US/Russia relations. With the Republicans struggling in the Presidential Elections currently, they need to hint that there's a new Cold War beginning (Ms Rice has been doing it for 3 years already). Their indexes are just invented lies.

Willy
03-08-2008, 17:32
http://www.iea.ru/2/freedom.gif
(http://www.iea.ru/index.php)










YouTube- Mose Allison - Your Mind Is On Vacation

Korotky Gennady
03-08-2008, 17:33
http://www.iea.ru/2/freedom.gif
(http://www.iea.ru/index.php)They say that in 1991 Russia had the "index of freedom" which is equal to 7,1. Now Russia has the "index of freedom" which is equal to 3,0 but I personaly remember my life in 1991 year very well and I can't say that I was even a little bit more free in 1991 than I am now... ;)

I can even say that my life was much harder in 1991 than it is now.


In fact I even didn't have a job in 1991 and there was the days in 1991 when I even was hungry... I remember that there was the awfull inflation in that year here too.

quote : " By the end of 1992, the Russian budget deficit was 20% of GDP, much higher than the 5% projected under the economic program and stipulated under the International Monetary Fund (IMF) conditions for international funding. This budget deficit was financed largely by expanding the money supply. These monetary and fiscal policies were a factor along with price liberalization in an inflation rate of over 2,000% in 1992. "

Economy of Russia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Russia#1991-1992)

DDT
03-08-2008, 18:56
Freedom House - a US-Govt funded organisation.
Well that's better than a Russian funded study. Considering Russia's election was obviously rigged to the point where International Observers didn't even bother to waste their time coming to Russia for the elections.
Maybe you would like this study then, and here's a quote first.

* The United States, our friends and allies, and the world are more threatened today by Russian economic, political, and social weaknesses than by Russian strength. Virtually every major problem in U.S.-Russia relations is directly or indirectly traceable to Russia's failure to complete a successful transition from Communism to free enterprise, and from a Soviet police state to a stable, securely democratic, and free society. U.S. policy should never seek to prolong or exploit Russia's weakness, but should seek to empower Russia to build upon her strengths.
* The unprecedented, across-the-board deterioration in Russian perceptions of the United States and of democracy and free enterprise during the past eight years represents a United States foreign policy disaster of the first magnitude. Unmitigated, the implications could be comparable to the collapse of democratic values in interwar Germany, or the early and mid-20th century triumph of Communist dictatorships in Russia, China, and Central Europe.
RUSSIA'S ROAD TO CORRUPTION (http://www.fas.org/news/russia/2000/russia/part13.htm)

RUSSIA'S ROAD TO CORRUPTION (http://www.fas.org/news/russia/2000/russia/index.html)

Willy
03-08-2008, 19:17
Well that's better than a Russian funded study. Considering Russia's election was obviously rigged to the point where International Observers didn't even bother to waste their time coming to Russia for the elections.
Maybe you would like this study then, and here's a quote first.

* The United States, our friends and allies, and the world are more threatened today by Russian economic, political, and social weaknesses than by Russian strength. Virtually every major problem in U.S.-Russia relations is directly or indirectly traceable to Russia's failure to complete a successful transition from Communism to free enterprise, and from a Soviet police state to a stable, securely democratic, and free society. U.S. policy should never seek to prolong or exploit Russia's weakness, but should seek to empower Russia to build upon her strengths.
* The unprecedented, across-the-board deterioration in Russian perceptions of the United States and of democracy and free enterprise during the past eight years represents a United States foreign policy disaster of the first magnitude. Unmitigated, the implications could be comparable to the collapse of democratic values in interwar Germany, or the early and mid-20th century triumph of Communist dictatorships in Russia, China, and Central Europe.
RUSSIA'S ROAD TO CORRUPTION (http://www.fas.org/news/russia/2000/russia/part13.htm)

RUSSIA'S ROAD TO CORRUPTION (http://www.fas.org/news/russia/2000/russia/index.html)


Your trying to tell us the first Bush win was fair?

DDT
03-08-2008, 19:19
They say that in 1991 Russia had the "index of freedom" which is equal to 7,1. Now Russia has the "index of freedom" which is equal to 3,0 but I personaly remember my life in 1991 year very well and I can't say that I was even a little bit more free in 1991 than I am now... ;)

I can even say that my life was much harder in 1991 than it is now.


In fact I even didn't have a job in 1991 and there was the days in 1991 when I even was hungry... I remember that there was the awfull inflation in that year here too.
Just because your economy is better and you can find food doesn't mean you are freer now. Russian elections are not free. You have no say in what your government does. You have restrictions of movement still imposed on you. Starlin re-introduced the internal passport. Thousands of Ukrainians were prevented from moving away from starvation conditions with this "passport", and you yet have not done away with it. You are told when and where you can get married because communists set up ZAGGS offices after the revolution and you still use them. Police in Russia are allowed grab anyone they feel like and demand them to produce papers without probable cause. I don't have any of these restrictions in the countries of my citizenships and in the USA I am protected by the right to free speech (which Putin took from you) The right to defend myself with deadly force (from even my own government). The right to unreasonable searches and many more that Russians don't have.

btw, I said that, to some expats, act as if they are in a zoo park, not you. They look around and see open man holes ready for people to fall in, streets with pot holes, dirty drinking water and say, "How quaint these natives are, don't you think Sidney?"

DDT
03-08-2008, 19:24
Your trying to tell us the first Bush win was fair?
At least there is a debate over that but there is no debate over russian elections. Anyway there were way more Red states then there were Blue states.

Judge
03-08-2008, 19:34
DDT wrote.


You are told when and where you can get married:Loco::Loco::Loco:


Da, Putin and his men put a gun to my wife's head and told her to marry me..

Judge
03-08-2008, 19:37
DDT wrote..

Police in Russia are allowed grab anyone they feel like and demand them to produce papers without probable cause.

Atleast in Russia they only want to check your papers...unlike other countries..

Bush Can Now Grab, Imprison ANY US Citizens He Chooses (http://www.rense.com/general73/nab.htm)

'' Benjamin Franklin's prescient warning should give us pause: "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."

DDT
03-08-2008, 19:48
DDT wrote..


Atleast in Russia they only want to check your papers...unlike other countries..

Bush Can Now Grab, Imprison ANY US Citizens He Chooses (http://www.rense.com/general73/nab.htm)

'' Benjamin Franklin's prescient warning should give us pause: "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."I agree with you. There is cause for concern over the Patriot act. Franklin was right! We can change these BS laws still, though. But people have to stop thinking in terms of Democrats and Republicans. Obama won't do anything but make things worse so I am left with no choice but McCain. I would have voted for Ron Paul.

Judge
03-08-2008, 19:59
I agree with you. There is cause for concern over the Patriot act. Franklin was right! We can change these BS laws still, though. But people have to stop thinking in terms of Democrats and Republicans. Obama won't do anything but make things worse so I am left with no choice but McCain. I would have voted for Ron Paul.

This is where many of us differ on this forum...I think Obama will lead America in a new direction,but McCain will carry on the same road which Bush has chosen...

I like some of the things Ron Paul wants to do..legalize hemp would get my vote.By making Hemp legal we wont rely too much on oil..

Gypsy
03-08-2008, 20:06
I agree with you. There is cause for concern over the Patriot act. Franklin was right! We can change these BS laws still, though. But people have to stop thinking in terms of Democrats and Republicans. Obama won't do anything but make things worse so I am left with no choice but McCain. I would have voted for Ron Paul.How?

Korotky Gennady
03-08-2008, 20:08
By making Hemp legal we wont rely too much on oil.. :eek: What relations do Hemp and oil have to each other ?

Korotky Gennady
03-08-2008, 20:10
How? He can... you know.

Korotky Gennady
03-08-2008, 20:15
I am protected by the right to free speech (which Putin took from you) The right to defend myself with deadly force (from even my own government).

What ? But what kind of speech I have now when I'm speaking to you ? Is it not free... ain't ? You have the same right for free speech as I have... We both have it here and there.

Putin can't deprive us the possibility for free speech. And i tell my students all that I think about anything...


Let any russian here on the forum will tell us what free speech Putin deprived us, russians,...

In fact i never heard that russians were afraid to speak freely anything about Putin or his policy... anything in political field. Never. So no one deprived us this right.

I personally speak freely at any possibility that I have. And I wish you the same.


And I repeat it one more time... In 1991 I had the same right to speak freely as I have it just now in 2008.

Judge
03-08-2008, 20:20
:eek: What relations do Hemp and oil have to each other ?

Cars can run on hemp,this way we wont rely on oil.
Hemp isn't all about smoking and getting high...:lovepot::lovepot:

MELODY
03-08-2008, 20:33
Cars can run on hemp,this way we wont rely on oil.
Hemp isn't all about smoking and getting high...:lovepot::lovepot:

sure! that's what all stoners say!

Korotky Gennady
03-08-2008, 20:33
Police in Russia are allowed grab anyone they feel like and demand them to produce papers without probable cause.




Article 22 of Constitution of Russian Federation

1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom and personal immunity.

2. Arrest, detention and remanding in custody shall be allowed only by court decision. Without the court's decision a person may be detained for a term more than 48 hours.

Chapter 2. Rights and Freedoms of Man And Citizen | The Constitution of the Russian Federation (http://www.constitution.ru/en/10003000-03.htm)

Korotky Gennady
03-08-2008, 20:37
J
in the USA I am protected by the right to free speech (which Putin took from you) The right to defend myself with deadly force (from even my own government).

The right to unreasonable searches and many more that Russians don't have.


Article 29

1. Everyone shall be guaranteed the freedom of ideas and speech.

2. The propaganda or agitation instigating social, racial, national or religious hatred and strife shall not be allowed. The propaganda of social, racial, national, religious or linguistic supremacy shall be banned.

3. No one may be forced to express his views and convictions or to reject them.

4. Everyone shall have the right to freely look for, receive, transmit, produce and distribute information by any legal way. The list of data comprising state secrets shall be determined by a federal law.

5. The freedom of mass communication shall be guaranteed. Censorship shall be banned.


Chapter 2. Rights and Freedoms of Man And Citizen | The Constitution of the Russian Federation (http://www.constitution.ru/en/10003000-03.htm)

Judge
03-08-2008, 20:40
sure! that's what all stoners say!

keep believing in government propaganda about Hemp..:smokin::smokin:

God gave us Hemp to be used in many ways...:watching::watching:

Gypsy
03-08-2008, 20:44
It isn't clear how they form their Indexes... KG- DDT has posted assertions on a few threads and whenever challenged to back them up he just resorts to insult.

Please do not feed the Troll.

Korotky Gennady
03-08-2008, 20:45
You are told when and where you can get married because communists set up ZAGGS offices after the revolution and you still use them.



Who ? Me !? Communists told me when and where should I marry ? Did you fall from the sky ? Who told you the such abbracadabra ?

Judge
03-08-2008, 20:47
Hemp was good enough back then and it's good enough now...

Here's a cool video..
:tv::tv:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dkn03cJ3vxM

MELODY
03-08-2008, 20:47
keep believing in government propaganda about Hemp..:smokin::smokin:

God gave us Hemp to be used in many ways...:watching::watching:

ah, so you're a religious man! great. now, dear, hemp may be good for this and that (hey--i peruse the products at the Body Shop), but, if you had some in your hand right now: would you smoke it, or put it in your gas tank?

no lying--GOD IS WATCHING.

Willy
03-08-2008, 20:55
DDT wrote.

:Loco::Loco::Loco:


Da, Putin and his men put a gun to my wife's head and told her to marry me..


Now I know why such a sweet thing married a bloke like you.

justposting
03-08-2008, 21:21
well, the poverty line in the US is 10,400 for one person. What is the average icome in Russia? Less than the US poverty line. And that's after 9 years of economic growth. And I do not any single Russian who would seriously want to go back to USSR. Hey, go the Cuban Embassy sometime and see how many people are lining up for visas to Cuba. Except maybe for guys who want to go find some very cheap pussy which only US dollars will buy. Cuba - socialist paradise where any foreign guy with a few US dollars can buy any girl he wants.

This is just blatantly foolish and false information, according to the cia world fact book the average income would be $15,000, but several sources cite this number is actually $18,000, to compare, South Korea is about $25,000, Japan $34,000, and USA $46,000.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html


And anyway, even if it were $10,000, it wouldn't matter! because it's not the native currency, therefore it makes this very inaccurate

How stupid.

Judge
03-08-2008, 21:25
ah, so you're a religious man! great. now, dear, hemp may be good for this and that (hey--i peruse the products at the Body Shop), but, if you had some in your hand right now: would you smoke it, or put it in your gas tank?

no lying--GOD IS WATCHING.

I don't own a car so I wont need it for fuel..:rasta:

DDT
03-08-2008, 22:20
Who ? Me !? Communists told me when and where should I marry ? Did you fall from the sky ? Who told you the such abbracadabra ?
Don't make a fool out of your self. Try getting married next week.

DDT
03-08-2008, 22:25
What ? But what kind of speech I have now when I'm speaking to you ? Is it not free... ain't ? You have the same right for free speech as I have... We both have it here and there.

Putin can't deprive us the possibility for free speech. And i tell my students all that I think about anything...


Let any russian here on the forum will tell us what free speech Putin deprived us, russians,...

In fact i never heard that russians were afraid to speak freely anything about Putin or his policy... anything in political field. Never. So no one deprived us this right.

I personally speak freely at any possibility that I have. And I wish you the same.


And I repeat it one more time... In 1991 I had the same right to speak freely as I have it just now in 2008.

Who do you work for Putin?
You live in St Petes so must be aware of the 300 people last November who were beaten and arrested for asking for reforms. ..........Oh ....I see, it wasn't mentioned in the state run newspaper you read.
Just because your government has a paper to show you that your are free, doesn't make it a reality.

Korotky Gennady
03-08-2008, 22:27
Don't make a fool out of your self. Try getting married next week.I did one time already. It took only two weeks for waiting this merry event.

Judge
03-08-2008, 22:30
Don't make a fool out of your self. Try getting married next week.

That's because places are booked before hand, you gotta see when they have an opening.Russian's can get married where they want, expats can't.

It's a shame it's not like Las Vegas here,pop down to Vegas,dress up like Elvis and get married..:ok:

Korotky Gennady
03-08-2008, 22:32
Who do you work for Putin?
You live in St Petes so must be aware of the 300 people last November who were beaten and arrested for asking for reforms. ..........Oh ....I see, it wasn't mentioned in the state run newspaper you read.
Just because your government has a paper to show you that your are free, doesn't make it a reality.I know it... The radio "Liberty", Ren-tv channel, the news-pappers of the political opposition wrote a lot about the rallies of that kind... and what ?


I asked you a few times how does Putin limit my personal freedom ?


If you have money, you can do anything in Russia. No one will limit your personal freedom, the freedom of your self-expression... I know I will be sounding a little cynical but money is real freedom. Who has money, this man is free. Who hasn't no money, this man is a slave. And this thing works this way everywhere...


The "freedom", the "human rights" are empty words for you, if you haven't money.

The rich classes invented these empty words in order to force the poor classes to be humble to them.

DDT
03-08-2008, 22:38
Two weeks hey? Hmm...I hear they will let you get married quickly if you are going to have a baby otherwise you have to wait a month...no exceptions, I don't know how you managed that! In the USA I could get married tomorrow almost anywhere. And I wouldn't have to talk to some crabby bitch at ZAGS first and fill out a battery of meaningless forms 4 f ing times because it didn't look pretty enough.

Check this out: From the Declaration Of Independance


"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
The Declaration of Independence (http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/index.htm)


And this, from our old pal Gorbachev:

who told his party friends in 1987 "Gentlemen, comrades, do not be concerned about all you hear about Glasnost and Perestroika and democracy in the coming years. They are primarily for outward consumption. There will be no significant internal changes in the Soviet Union, other than for cosmetic purposes. Our purpose is to disarm the Americans and let them fall asleep."

Korotky Gennady
03-08-2008, 22:54
And this, from our old pal Gorbachev:

who told his party friends in 1987 "Gentlemen, comrades, do not be concerned about all you hear about Glasnost and Perestroika and democracy in the coming years. They are primarily for outward consumption. There will be no significant internal changes in the Soviet Union, other than for cosmetic purposes. Our purpose is to disarm the Americans and let them fall asleep."
I don't believe that these are his words. It's only new bright example of american anti-russian propaganda.

Korotky Gennady
03-08-2008, 22:59
Check this out: From the Declaration Of Independance


"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
The Declaration of Independence (http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/index.htm)






[/COLOR]Seems that your Fathers Founders forgot about millions black slaves who lived in those times in USA... :doh: Maybe it was becoz these "Fathers" didn't want to lose their alive wealth just for nothing...

Korotky Gennady
03-08-2008, 23:12
Article 3

1. The bearer of sovereignty and the only source of power in the Russian Federation shall be its multinational people.

2. The people shall exercise their power directly, and also through the bodies of state power and local self-government.

3. The supreme direct expression of the power of the people shall be referenda and free elections.

4. No one may usurp power in the Russian Federation. Seizure of power or usurping state authority shall be prosecuted by federal law.

Chapter 1. The Fundamentals of the Constitutional System | The Constitution of the Russian Federation (http://www.constitution.ru/en/10003000-02.htm)

Article 31

Citizens of the Russian Federation shall have the right to assemble peacefully, without weapons, hold rallies, meetings and demonstrations, marches and pickets.

DDT
03-08-2008, 23:24
Yes, they did ignore the Blacks and Indians and it was a shameful episode in US history.

But concering Gorbachev, in Anatoly Golitsyn's 1984 book New Lies For Old (the manuscript was completed in 1980, ten years before the events themselves) he predicts the "phoney" collapse of the Soviets.
Golitsyn’s predictions are based on his inside knowledge of Soviet long-range strategy. It should also be noted that many of the predictions contained in New Lies For Old date back to the 1960s and 1970s, as the book is based on memos he was writing to the CIA during that time while still under their employ (he defected from the KGB in 1961).

Of course, the CIA refused to heed Golitsyn’s warnings about the coming phony collapse of the Soviet Union (the one exception being the head of Counter Intelligence, James Angleton, and his staff…some of which, along with members of MI5 and MI6, took the bold step of writing the Editor’s Forward to Golitsyn’s book).
New Lies for Old (http://www.seanet.com/~barkonwd/golitsyn.htm)
Amazon.com: New Lies for Old (9780945001133): Anatoliy Golitsyn: Books@@AMEPARAM@@http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/7123XXMXARL.@@AMEPARAM@@7123XXMXARL

Korotky Gennady
03-08-2008, 23:43
Yes, they did ignore the Blacks and Indians and it was a shameful episode in US history.



Washington and slavery

For most of his life, Washington operated his plantations as a typical Virginia slave owner. In the 1760s, he dropped tobacco (which was prestigious but unprofitable) and shifted to hemp[49] and wheat growing and diversified into milling flour, weaving cloth, and distilling brandy. By the time of his death, there were 317 slaves at Mount Vernon.

Since maintaining a large (and increasingly elderly) slave population was not economically profitable, Washington wrote to his manager at Mount Vernon that he wished to sell his slaves and "to get quit of negroes" while he was at war in 1778. Washington could not legally sell "dower slaves" (those that belonged to his wife) however, and because these slaves had long intermarried with his own slaves, he could not sell his slaves without breaking up families.[50]

George Washington - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Gilbert_Stuart_Williamstown_Portrait_of_George_Washington.jpg" class="image" title="George Washington"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b6/Gilbert_Stuart_Williamstown_Portrait_of_George_Washington.jpg/270px-Gilbert_Stuart_Williamstown_Portrait_of_George_Washington.jpg"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/b/b6/Gilbert_Stuart_Williamstown_Portrait_of_George_Washington.jpg/270px-Gilbert_Stuart_Williamstown_Portrait_of_George_Washington.jpg

DDT
04-08-2008, 01:00
Don't think that you can throw everything good about these great minds and reforms that they made out the window just because .....oh my god...they had slaves!. John F Kennedy screwed around on his wife are we going to say he was not worth a bucket of camel dung now?

Admit it, the US Constitution and Bill Of Rights was unique and ahead of its time piece of work. They saw the inhumanities in European style governments and wrote a document that far surpassed anything Europe had to offer.

Len Ganley Stance
04-08-2008, 10:37
Admit it, the US Constitution and Bill Of Rights was unique and ahead of its time piece of work. They saw the inhumanities in European style governments and wrote a document that far surpassed anything Europe had to offer.

I think that you might find that the Magna Carta was a bit ahead of its time as well. Especially when you consider that the first edition dates back to 1215, when the Earth was still flat.

Carbo
04-08-2008, 11:19
OK, let's get something straight: Capitalism is better morally and economically for everyone than communism or far-left socialism (we should exclude mild social democratic and Scandinavian socialism from the equation).

That’s not opinion, it's fact. There are no qualifiers; nobody can come up with credible fact, logic or evidence to prove otherwise. And I'll argue that case with anyone.

That being said, the reaction from some quarters in the West to the collapse of communism in Russia has been a disgrace. It's little wonder Russians get touchy when we Westerners start going on about this, because we've acted like petulant 6-year olds who have just scored the winning goal in the school playground against a team captained by a bitter rival: full of in-your-face, smug, self-righteous conceit.

Don’t we see that told-you-so-ism is simply piling ignominy on already wounded national pride?

Yes, capitalism is better. Yes, the communists were wrong – very wrong in every way – and they ran a dissolute system that I personally find morally repugnant. Hey, we can sit with the satisfaction of knowing that we were right. But we didn’t ‘win’ the cold war. There’s no triumphant march through Red Square to be had. Communism was just flawed and wrong and collapsed when the fundamental winds that had kept the ramshackle ship with enough in its sails to inch forward died.

How about we keep our mouths shut and let a country heal and get on with rebuilding in some kind of dignity instead of taking every opportunity to rub their 70-year mistake in their faces? After only 17 years of capitalism, and only 10 years of crushing economic collapse and poverty, there are still faults, and things that could be better, but Russia isn’t doing too badly, I would say.

Pechorin
04-08-2008, 11:41
Oh I agree with you. I am not trying to mock Russians, but rather thoe on the left who think that globalization, capitalism, business etc etc are all bad things, and that socialism is some human paradise on earth. And sad to say, at Harvard, Columbia, Yale etc there are plenty of people who think like this.

And I think it is a remarkable story, how billions of poor people have been lifted into lives of modest prosperity over the last two decades.

Carbo
04-08-2008, 11:53
Yes, they did ignore the Blacks and Indians and it was a shameful episode in US history.

But concering Gorbachev, in Anatoly Golitsyn's 1984 book New Lies For Old (the manuscript was completed in 1980, ten years before the events themselves) he predicts the "phoney" collapse of the Soviets.
Golitsyn’s predictions are based on his inside knowledge of Soviet long-range strategy. It should also be noted that many of the predictions contained in New Lies For Old date back to the 1960s and 1970s, as the book is based on memos he was writing to the CIA during that time while still under their employ (he defected from the KGB in 1961).

Of course, the CIA refused to heed Golitsyn’s warnings about the coming phony collapse of the Soviet Union (the one exception being the head of Counter Intelligence, James Angleton, and his staff…some of which, along with members of MI5 and MI6, took the bold step of writing the Editor’s Forward to Golitsyn’s book).
New Lies for Old (http://www.seanet.com/~barkonwd/golitsyn.htm)
Amazon.com: New Lies for Old: Anatoliy Golitsyn: Books (http://www.amazon.com/New-Lies-Old-Anatoliy-Golitsyn/dp/0945001134)
I've just read your posts regarding the 'collapse' of the Soviet Union and Golitsyn.

I must say that as soon as you mentioned your preferred president would be Ron Paul, and I saw the Gorbachev quote, I knew you would mention Golitsyn.

I don't mean that as an offense, but you fit the bill.

Golitsyn was right about many things, and his predictions were far more prescient than many within the intelligence community were willing to admit. I certainly believe that Jesus James Angelton's sponsorship didn't help his cause.

However, I don't believe that any political system as inefficient and morally wrong as communism could make a return after a long dose of capitalism. There'll be no will at all to go back, and Goliutsyn will, in his final, most outrageous prediction, be proved wrong.

DDT
04-08-2008, 12:19
However, I don't believe that any political system as inefficient and morally wrong as communism could make a return after a long dose of capitalism. There'll be no will at all to go back, and Goliutsyn will, in his final, most outrageous prediction, be proved wrong.

Well, I hope you are right'. I would like to add that you are also right in your statement that Westerners should not gloat over the collapse of Communism. However, I believe that our US leaders and Clinton failed to encourage and support the changes taking place in Russia in the 90's and in the end ignored the only chance they had of welcoming Russia into her new place amongst free nations.

MissAnnElk
04-08-2008, 14:58
OK, let's get something straight: Capitalism is better morally and economically for everyone than communism or far-left socialism (we should exclude mild social democratic and Scandinavian socialism from the equation).

Thats not opinion, it's fact. There are no qualifiers; nobody can come up with credible fact, logic or evidence to prove otherwise. And I'll argue that case with anyone.

First, let me say that I am NO fan of communism. But I used to teach English as a Second Language in Pittsburgh. My students were largely Russian Jews . . . people who were virtually kicked out of the USSR and, themselves, no fans of the system.

They could not understand why in the US the arts were not free and available to everyone ("Why do I have to pay to get into the museum?"). Why our athletes have to find sponsors. Why medical care was not available to everyone. Why there was unemployment.

The trade off: they could think what they want. Worship as they chose. Speak their minds. Have some social mobility (based on their own efforts).

But they kept coming back to how "Capitalism is cruel."

Carbo
04-08-2008, 15:30
First, let me say that I am NO fan of communism. But I used to teach English as a Second Language in Pittsburgh. My students were largely Russian Jews . . . people who were virtually kicked out of the USSR and, themselves, no fans of the system.

They could not understand why in the US the arts were not free and available to everyone ("Why do I have to pay to get into the museum?"). Why our athletes have to find sponsors. Why medical care was not available to everyone. Why there was unemployment.

The trade off: they could think what they want. Worship as they chose. Speak their minds. Have some social mobility (based on their own efforts).

But they kept coming back to how "Capitalism is cruel."
You're way underselling capitalism, I'm afraid. Yes, it is cruel to a certain extent, more so in countries like Britain and America than in Germany.

But as well as social mobility and free speech ect, they'd have been far, far wealthier in capitalist America than in Communist Russia. Fact.

ultimotattie
04-08-2008, 15:30
OK, let's get something straight: Capitalism is better morally and economically for everyone than communism or far-left socialism (we should exclude mild social democratic and Scandinavian socialism from the equation).

That’s not opinion, it's fact. There are no qualifiers; nobody can come up with credible fact, logic or evidence to prove otherwise. And I'll argue that case with anyone.

That being said, the reaction from some quarters in the West to the collapse of communism in Russia has been a disgrace. It's little wonder Russians get touchy when we Westerners start going on about this, because we've acted like petulant 6-year olds who have just scored the winning goal in the school playground against a team captained by a bitter rival: full of in-your-face, smug, self-righteous conceit.

Don’t we see that told-you-so-ism is simply piling ignominy on already wounded national pride?

Yes, capitalism is better. Yes, the communists were wrong – very wrong in every way – and they ran a dissolute system that I personally find morally repugnant. Hey, we can sit with the satisfaction of knowing that we were right. But we didn’t ‘win’ the cold war. There’s no triumphant march through Red Square to be had. Communism was just flawed and wrong and collapsed when the fundamental winds that had kept the ramshackle ship with enough in its sails to inch forward died.

How about we keep our mouths shut and let a country heal and get on with rebuilding in some kind of dignity instead of taking every opportunity to rub their 70-year mistake in their faces? After only 17 years of capitalism, and only 10 years of crushing economic collapse and poverty, there are still faults, and things that could be better, but Russia isn’t doing too badly, I would say.

Morally better? You might need to elaborate on that. Profit at any cost is hardly moral.


Oh I agree with you. I am not trying to mock Russians, but rather thoe on the left who think that globalization, capitalism, business etc etc are all bad things, and that socialism is some human paradise on earth. And sad to say, at Harvard, Columbia, Yale etc there are plenty of people who think like this.

And I think it is a remarkable story, how billions of poor people have been lifted into lives of modest prosperity over the last two decades.

Billions? If you are focusing on Russia it would be millions, and even on a worldwide scale, I don't think capitalism has somehow dramatically changed the lives of billions of poor people in the past 20 years.

Pechorin
04-08-2008, 15:48
Bric

Carbo
05-08-2008, 09:32
Morally better? You might need to elaborate on that. Profit at any cost is hardly moral.
I'm not going to give you a history lesson potato-man.

Read the biographies of Stalin and Lenin by Robert Service. Read Comrades: A World History of Communism by the same author. Read The Gulag Archipelago.

Find out what levels of free speech, media and judicial independence, freedom of movement, freedom of choice, commerce, and standard of living (median, mean, whatever) there was in communist Russia.

El_Desaparecido
05-08-2008, 11:23
I still dont really get the point with the business.
Guys whose only concern is to make money by what means whatsoever are making the world a better place?
Where is the connection between the profit of the few and the well being of the masses?

I think that its probably more the Ghandis, Mandelas, Mother Theresas, etc who make this world a bit better.
But of course I bow to your brilliance and accept that its the Trumps, Kenneth Lays, Ackermanns, Abramovichs and the like who bring me freedom, free speech and health care.

DDT
05-08-2008, 12:04
I think that its probably more the Ghandis, Mandelas, Mother Theresas, etc who make this world a bit better.

Perhaps if you had your facts straight about who these people really were instead of just listening to the latest news blurb (i.e Mandela was a Marxist advocating violence and help plan mass murder. He didn't "make this world any better" in fact S Africa is worse now. Why is he listed next to Teresa?) you would also have the capability to understand that the infrastructure of communities exist because of economics and communities excel when individuals are rewarded in accordance to their effort.

If you want to live like a freak'n hippie, throw your laptop away!

El_Desaparecido
05-08-2008, 12:19
Ok, get me the facts straight then.
Infrastructure is introduced by profit-driven entities?
Like the British railways? Like any form of public transport in my own country after privatisation?
I come from a small village some 50km from Vienna. 10 yrs ago we had a train and a bus every two hours. Then privatisation kicked in and if I want to visit my father there today, I have to go there by car, otherwise I could walk those 50km.
I am also very happy that I can rest assured of being treated in a hospital, REGARDLESS of my ability to pay for it or not. Whats the benefit of free speech if you dont live long enough to exercise it? A basic level of social security is part of a states responsibility to its citizens, something that cannot be subsituted by a market economy.

Market economy is a good thing without doubt. Greed is a legitimate motor to support innovation and development. But its not the solution to everything.

DDT
05-08-2008, 12:36
Well, I can't find anything to disagree with there. I believe that there are a few times when some things should be "socialised" the debate is over "how much". As little as possible I think.
Remember in socialism, in order for your bus to go to places where few people use the bus service, "everybody" must pay for services they don't use. That is not fair either. So there is a dilemma on how much socialism to allow into a capitalistic society before that society becomes just a greedy rabble demanding hand outs for their own personal needs at the expense of everybody's wages.

Perhaps you should buy a car!
Perhaps you could afford one if you weren't taxed so heavily in order to pay for other peoples services that you don't use.

El_Desaparecido
05-08-2008, 13:07
Very well, so we are getting to the point now.

Yes, rabiate socialism didnt solve the problems, as doesnt rabiate capitalism.
You need the driving force of greed to get things going, to support innovation, development and efficiency, as you need non-profit oriented behaviour by the state to keep the society together.
Which way you lean depends on the consent the affected society (ideally).

But I strongly disagree with the conclusion that business alone brings liberty and free speech (at least not to the masses).

China shows pretty well that you can indeed have one without the other: Rabiate capitalism as we well probably never have in the West, almost no social security AND no personal freedom.

ultimotattie
05-08-2008, 15:27
I'm not going to give you a history lesson potato-man.

Read the biographies of Stalin and Lenin by Robert Service. Read Comrades: A World History of Communism by the same author. Read The Gulag Archipelago.

Find out what levels of free speech, media and judicial independence, freedom of movement, freedom of choice, commerce, and standard of living (median, mean, whatever) there was in communist Russia.

You would also take care to note that although Lenin desired a socialist then a communist society, he never claimed to have achieved them. His initial plans and then the NEP were actually formulated in order to take Russia kicking and screaming into a capitalist society. He was trying to achieve a rapid rise to capitalism and then beyond.

Some of his methods were very questionable and the unchecked rise of the Cheka did not help, but it should also not be forgotten that the country was in a state of virtual anarchy and that WW1 was crippling Russia further. Not to mention the allied interventions directly after it to support non-Bolshevik factions.

Under Stalin these policies continued, before he then said that socialism had been achieved to try and make himself look like some sort of hero and appease the grumbling masses.

Then you get to the modern day, and have to ask yourself what excuses the present-day administrations of such countries as the USA and UK have for similar attitudes? The one thing they all have in common is that they are/were in a capitalist stage of development!



Well, I can't find anything to disagree with there. I believe that there are a few times when some things should be "socialised" the debate is over "how much". As little as possible I think.
Remember in socialism, in order for your bus to go to places where few people use the bus service, "everybody" must pay for services they don't use. That is not fair either. So there is a dilemma on how much socialism to allow into a capitalistic society before that society becomes just a greedy rabble demanding hand outs for their own personal needs at the expense of everybody's wages.

Perhaps you should buy a car!
Perhaps you could afford one if you weren't taxed so heavily in order to pay for other peoples services that you don't use.

What point in paying tax if it is not to be spent on services to help the community? Should our tax be used so that government officials can claim refunds on travel, accomodation and other expenses which we will never know about it?

Or maybe taxes should be paid by everyone, but only for the benefit of people in cities?

Of course, everyone could buy a car, but not everyone manages to make enough money to buy a car, pay for insurance and tax, fill it up with fuel, and keep it in good condition. I guess thats their fault for not earning enough though eh? Funny that, because money in any country is finite, there is a limited supply. For one person to be well off, someone else has to have less. So yes, not everyone can have a car.

And if there were more cars on the street, well, there is less chance one of your cop buddies could park freely for his lunch. ;)

El_Desaparecido
05-08-2008, 15:45
Well, I can't find anything to disagree with there. I believe that there are a few times when some things should be "socialised" the debate is over "how much". As little as possible I think.
Remember in socialism, in order for your bus to go to places where few people use the bus service, "everybody" must pay for services they don't use. That is not fair either. So there is a dilemma on how much socialism to allow into a capitalistic society before that society becomes just a greedy rabble demanding hand outs for their own personal needs at the expense of everybody's wages.

Perhaps you should buy a car!
Perhaps you could afford one if you weren't taxed so heavily in order to pay for other peoples services that you don't use.

Thats what we call "solidarity principle" in Europe (beat me if the correct translation to English may differ).
The society as a whole, hence every single individual has to pay for services that not everybody uses. Unfair, isnt it? From a "what is mine, is mine"-point of view it is indeed, but I prefer to pay the hospital treatment of the poor with my taxes than letting people die because they dont have, say 20 000 bucks for an urgent surgery. Not only that, I can also rely on that system, should I lose my economic well being for any reason whatsoever.
I prefer this principle somewhat over a strict "everybody looks after himself", as this inevitably leaves people behind.
Not everything in life is cost and benefit, dont you have the "persuit of happiness" in the US consitution?

TGP
05-08-2008, 15:58
Don't think that you can throw everything good about these great minds and reforms that they made out the window just because .....oh my god...they had slaves!. John F Kennedy screwed around on his wife are we going to say he was not worth a bucket of camel dung now?

Admit it, the US Constitution and Bill Of Rights was unique and ahead of its time piece of work. They saw the inhumanities in European style governments and wrote a document that far surpassed anything Europe had to offer.

Oh, boy... really, no comments.

El_Desaparecido
05-08-2008, 16:06
Don't think that you can throw everything good about these great minds and reforms that they made out the window just because .....oh my god...they had slaves!. John F Kennedy screwed around on his wife are we going to say he was not worth a bucket of camel dung now?

Admit it, the US Constitution and Bill Of Rights was unique and ahead of its time piece of work. They saw the inhumanities in European style governments and wrote a document that far surpassed anything Europe had to offer.

Ok, I can understand that slavery doesnt bother you too much, since it was good business, after all (and business means freedom, as I learned today, so slavery cant be that wrong).

But I slightly recall something similar going on in Europe, as "democracy" is a greek word and the french published some funny papers back in 1789.

Carbo
05-08-2008, 18:19
You would also take care to note that although Lenin desired a socialist then a communist society, he never claimed to have achieved them. His initial plans and then the NEP were actually formulated in order to take Russia kicking and screaming into a capitalist society. He was trying to achieve a rapid rise to capitalism and then beyond.

Some of his methods were very questionable and the unchecked rise of the Cheka did not help, but it should also not be forgotten that the country was in a state of virtual anarchy and that WW1 was crippling Russia further. Not to mention the allied interventions directly after it to support non-Bolshevik factions.

Under Stalin these policies continued, before he then said that socialism had been achieved to try and make himself look like some sort of hero and appease the grumbling masses.

Then you get to the modern day, and have to ask yourself what excuses the present-day administrations of such countries as the USA and UK have for similar attitudes? The one thing they all have in common is that they are/were in a capitalist stage of development!

"You would also take care to note that although Lenin..." Would I take care if what? I don't get you? Did you mean 'should'?

His NEP was not formulated to bring Russia "kicking and screaming into a capitalist society." You're confusing two points here. First, that Lenin believed in Marx's dictum that communism was the inevitable conclusion of capitalism. Lenin believed (or at least he said he did before the revolution until he performed a u-turn after the revolution when trying to agitate for revolutions in other countries) that capitalism was needed as a precursor for communism.

Second the purposes of the NEP, which was not set up to install capitalism in Russia. It was designed with the sole intention of using limited capitalism to kickstart flatlining grain production. Trotsky had suggested it months before, and was subjected to withering abuse from Lenin for doing so. Then Lenin realised that his policy of requisitioning and confiscating grains was leading the country, the revolution and, more importantly, him personally, to ruin, and he adopted Trotsky's idea and claimed it as his own. So what does that tell you? Pure political expediency, was NEP. Not to mention a dazzling example of the reason communism will always fail.

And I love this paragraph: "Some of his methods were very questionable and the unchecked rise of the Cheka did not help, but it should also not be forgotten that the country was in a state of virtual anarchy and that WW1 was crippling Russia further. Not to mention the allied interventions directly after it to support non-Bolshevik factions."

Some of his methods... Some? The Cheka didn't help?? Jesus wept. That's awful, slothful analysis and deliberately weaseling understatement. The country was always backward compared to Europe (that capitalist-democracy thing, again) and in a terrible state due to the asinine mismanagement of Nicolas II. The world war didn't help, but then niether did Lenin's agitation and revolution, after which all semblance of control, order and law virtually broke down. Lenin, the premier of Russia, was mugged, held at gun point, on several occasions and had his personal gun and car and money stolen all inside a few months. Thing must have come to a pretty pass if the premier of the country can be held at gunpoint and have is car stolen by a few hoodlums. Read about Moscow in the years immediately following the revolution and you'll see. It was the revolution as much as anything else that caused the chaos, yet you’re trying to excuse its abject failures by using just that.

I will not respond to this lazy but emotive stuff anymore. There’s no point debating with somebody who insists on defending the indefensible and I feel I'm looking like a priggish bully by writing in this way.

DDT
05-08-2008, 18:56
Theres no point debating with somebody who insists on defending the indefensible and I feel I'm looking like a priggish bully by writing in this way.
It is said that if a lie is said often enough that it will eventually be taken for the truth.
I doubt that anything will ever sink into ultimotattie's head though, I imagine that some people, who have little knowledge of this subject but are open to new concepts, come to the forum and read this stuff, and if these people never read any rebuttals to misrepresentations of truth, they will go away with the wrong ideas.
There is a point, in at least some debating.

ultimotattie
05-08-2008, 19:25
"You would also take care to note that although Lenin..." Would I take care if what? I don't get you? Did you mean 'should'?

His NEP was not formulated to bring Russia "kicking and screaming into a capitalist society." You're confusing two points here. First, that Lenin believed in Marx's dictum that communism was the inevitable conclusion of capitalism. Lenin believed (or at least he said he did before the revolution until he performed a u-turn after the revolution when trying to agitate for revolutions in other countries) that capitalism was needed as a precursor for communism.

Second the purposes of the NEP, which was not set up to install capitalism in Russia. It was designed with the sole intention of using limited capitalism to kickstart flatlining grain production. Trotsky had suggested it months before, and was subjected to withering abuse from Lenin for doing so. Then Lenin realised that his policy of requisitioning and confiscating grains was leading the country, the revolution and, more importantly, him personally, to ruin, and he adopted Trotsky's idea and claimed it as his own. So what does that tell you? Pure political expediency, was NEP. Not to mention a dazzling example of the reason communism will always fail.

And I love this paragraph: "Some of his methods were very questionable and the unchecked rise of the Cheka did not help, but it should also not be forgotten that the country was in a state of virtual anarchy and that WW1 was crippling Russia further. Not to mention the allied interventions directly after it to support non-Bolshevik factions."

Some of his methods... Some? The Cheka didn't help?? Jesus wept. That's awful, slothful analysis and deliberately weaseling understatement. The country was always backward compared to Europe (that capitalist-democracy thing, again) and in a terrible state due to the asinine mismanagement of Nicolas II. The world war didn't help, but then niether did Lenin's agitation and revolution, after which all semblance of control, order and law virtually broke down. Lenin, the premier of Russia, was mugged, held at gun point, on several occasions and had his personal gun and car and money stolen all inside a few months. Thing must have come to a pretty pass if the premier of the country can be held at gunpoint and have is car stolen by a few hoodlums. Read about Moscow in the years immediately following the revolution and you'll see. It was the revolution as much as anything else that caused the chaos, yet you’re trying to excuse its abject failures by using just that.

I will not respond to this lazy but emotive stuff anymore. There’s no point debating with somebody who insists on defending the indefensible and I feel I'm looking like a priggish bully by writing in this way.

Stop getting yourself so worked up Carbi, this is a forum not a playground. You don't need to get heated and delve into the realms of rhetoric to discuss the issue.

My point was that the NEP used capitalism. Thanks for agreeing with me. When something is dragged kicking and screaming, it is usually because it can't or won't do it by its own accord.

As for Lenin being mugged, yup, that would pretty much support my point that the country was in a state of virtual anarchy. Thanks for agreeing with me again.

As for the revolution being the only origin of chaos, who exactly was running things across the country before it? Wait, mostly different soviets were running their own towns/cities, and the provisional government was a disaster. Hardly organised.

I am not trying to bring back Leninism, but you seem to think I am. People are capable of talking about things from a neutral point of view you know.

As for DDT, you are still smarting from the cops and doughnuts thread. :mooooh:

Carbo
07-08-2008, 10:50
Stop getting yourself so worked up Carbi, this is a forum not a playground. You don't need to get heated and delve into the realms of rhetoric to discuss the issue.

My point was that the NEP used capitalism. Thanks for agreeing with me. When something is dragged kicking and screaming, it is usually because it can't or won't do it by its own accord.

As for Lenin being mugged, yup, that would pretty much support my point that the country was in a state of virtual anarchy. Thanks for agreeing with me again.

As for the revolution being the only origin of chaos, who exactly was running things across the country before it? Wait, mostly different soviets were running their own towns/cities, and the provisional government was a disaster. Hardly organised.

I am not trying to bring back Leninism, but you seem to think I am. People are capable of talking about things from a neutral point of view you know.

As for DDT, you are still smarting from the cops and doughnuts thread. :mooooh:
Dear God, more risible stuff. "Delve into the realms of rhetoric"? Learn how to write a phrase that actually has some meaning.

As for being a forum rather than a playground, how about you try to use something beyond the six year old's "thanks for agreeing with me"? I did not agree with any of your major points.

You said:

"NEP [was] formulated in order to take Russia kicking and screaming into a capitalist society."

It was not, and I said it was not.

You then said that what you really meant was that capitalism was used to take the country somewhere it did not want to, or could not, go by its own accord. I would point out that it was not 'capitalism' that was used, but rather certain capitalist techniques applied with extremely limited scope -- two very different things. If I did that, though, I'd be distracting from the main point: namely, that your revised statement of meaning is diametrically opposed to your first, and therefore not believable as "what you really meant." One can not say “dragged toward capitalism”, and then say one meant “used capitalism”. If you are so excruciatingly poor at expressing your thoughts, I suspect you never say what you mean, or mean what you say.

A more likely explanation for your u-turn is that you realised that your position, being based on ignorance, was indefensible and tried to weasel-word your way out of it.

Second, on your point that Marxist-Leninism (or communism, or bolshevism or whatever you want to call it) was hindered by the parlous state of the Russian economy and the chaotic nature of the country’s civil life in general, you said:

"...but it should also not be forgotten that the country was in a state of virtual anarchy and that WW1 was crippling Russia further."

I argued that while the economy was already far behind Western Europe, and that Nicolas's ineptitude and WWI had certainly not helped, a large part of the economic inertia and social disorder was a direct effect of Lenin's agitation for revolution, the chaos caused by the revolution, and the misrule of the Bolsheviks in the revolution’s immediate aftermath.

It's cause and effect: You argued the Bolsheviks were not helped by the country's state, I argued that the country was in such a bad state mostly because of the Bolsheviks. That is not agreeing.

If you learned how to express properly your thoughts in prose, and learned some history, I’m sure we could both see eye-to-eye and have a meaningful discussion. Until that time…

ultimotattie
07-08-2008, 15:39
If you learned how to express properly your thoughts in prose, and learned some history, Im sure we could both see eye-to-eye and have a meaningful discussion. Until that time

Ah, you mean we can only have a discussion when I agree with your opinion?

You use some of the argumentative traits of Lenin throughout your ravings, how ironic.