Are You a Neoconservative? [Archive] - RonFez.net Messageboard

NewYorkDragons80

10-10-2003, 05:29 AM

Realist
Realists.
Are guided more by practical considerations than ideological vision
Believe US power is crucial to successful diplomacy - and vice versa
Don't want US policy options unduly limited by world opinion or ethical considerations
Believe strong alliances are important to US interests
Weigh the political costs of foreign action
Believe foreign intervention must be dictated by compelling national interest
Historical realist: President Dwight D. Eisenhower
Modern realist: Secretary of State Colin Powell

That definitely describes my views of the world, and I definitely think it is accurate to be grouped with two of the finest moderate Republicans in history.

<marquee>
"To insist on strength is not war-mongering. It is peace-mongering." -Senator Barry M. Goldwater "If gold should rust, what will iron do?" -Geoffrey Chaucer "Worship him, I beg you, in a way that is worthy of thinking beings.-Romans 12:1</marquee>
<img src=http://members.aol.com/cityhawk80/images/nydragonssig.bmp?mtbrand=AOL_US>

A.J.

10-10-2003, 05:45 AM

Bestinshow

10-10-2003, 06:01 AM

According to this, I am a realist also.

<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>
<marquee>I am not part of any percentage. I am the Bestinshow<marquee>
[center]Kiss a Doberman Today

Reephdweller

10-10-2003, 06:02 AM

Isolationist

The term isolationist is most often used negatively; few people who share its beliefs use it to describe their own foreign policy perspective. They believe in "America first." For them, national sovereignty trumps international relations. Many unions, libertarians, and anti-globalization protesters share isolationist tenets.

Isolationists.

Are wary of US involvement in the United Nations
Oppose international law, alliances, and agreements
Believe the US should not act as a global cop
Support trade practices that protect American workers
Oppose liberal immigration
Oppose American imperialism
Desire to preserve what they see as America's national identity and character

<center><IMG SRC="http://www.chaoticconcepts.com/randomizer/random.php?uid=3"></center>
<center>HORDE KING FOREVER!!!
ORACLE NEVER!!! </center>


<marquee behavior=alternate bgcolor="#FFFFFF">Right now you could care less about me...
but soon enough you will care, by the time Im done</marquee>

TooCute

10-10-2003, 06:29 AM

Liberal.

<img src="http://www.chaoticconcepts.com/bans/toocute2.gif">

Teenweek

10-10-2003, 06:43 AM

neoconservative along with the greatest president in my lifetime, ronald reagan. Go Ronnie.
Win one for the gipper. Tear down that wall. Yay

Aggie

10-10-2003, 06:51 AM

Realist. (I wish I was a realist about the rest of my life) :p

[center]<IMG SRC="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=Aggie">[center]

JerryTaker

10-10-2003, 07:17 AM

There's a surprise, The Christian Science Monitor considers me a liberal...

always consider the source

<IMG SRC="http://afs30.njit.edu/~gsm2321/snowsig.gif">

Even in death you still look sad.
Don't leave me! Dont leave me, here.

Alice S. Fuzzybutt

10-10-2003, 07:40 AM

Looks like me and reefdwella will be roomies on the militia compound:

Isolationist.

<IMG SRC="http://atamichimpo.50megs.com/images/alicegenesig.jpg">
I always thought that if I held you tightly
You'd always love me like you did back then

This message was edited by Alice S. Fuzzybutt on 10-10-03 @ 11:42 AM

silera

10-10-2003, 08:13 AM

Apparently, I'm a realist.

I think I didn't understand the questions.

<center>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/silera/files/Silera/sig4.gif
AND WHAT?</center>

Se7en

10-10-2003, 08:21 AM

I'm a Realist.

Here are my answers, just in case people want to know:

1.) "The US has compelling strategic interests in the region. America must be an "honest broker" between Israelis and Palestinians"

2.) "A quagmire. The US had the right strategy - it was important to contain communist expansion into Asia - but executed the wrong tactics. High casualty rates and low public support put the US in an unwinnable war."

3.) " China presents great potential dangers - and rewards - to American interests in the 21st century. "

4.) "Iran presents a serious foreign policy challenge. Most Iranians clearly embrace democratic reform, but its hardline Islamic government seems intractable..."

5.) "The US has a moral obligation to battle both the starvation of North Korea's people and deter Kim Jong Il's nuclear threats. "

6.) "Not America's finest hour of diplomacy, but a necessary and righteous action."

7.) "American power can spread peace and democracy across the globe. "

8.) "To preserve this country's sacred sovereignty, Americans must heed President George Washington's warning against "entangling alliances." "

9.) "Terrorists can't be negotiated with...."

10.) "President George W. Bush rightly made the nation's security his No. 1 priority after 9/11...."

Like Yerdaddy, I wasn't 100% satisfied with all of the language used or the choices available, but these choices most closely resembled my world view.

<center><img border="0" src="http://se7enrfnet.homestead.com/files/KyoSe7en.jpg" width="300" height="125">
 
 
Resistance is FLAMMABLE.</center>

furie

10-10-2003, 08:48 AM

Isolationist

<img src="http://tseery.homestead.com/files/asoh.jpg" height=100 width=300>

silera

10-10-2003, 09:05 AM

Here are my answers, just in case people want to know:

1.) "The US has compelling strategic interests in the region. America must be an "honest broker" between Israelis and Palestinians. By working with regional partners, the US can help bring about a secure Israel and a free state of Palestine. US efforts in the Mideast help its diplomatic standing in the world immensely."

2.) "A quagmire. The US had the right strategy - it was important to contain communist expansion into Asia - but executed the wrong tactics. High casualty rates and low public support put the US in an unwinnable war."

3.) " China presents great potential dangers - and rewards - to American interests in the 21st century. "

4.) "The US is simply not positioned to stop Iran's seemingly inevitable drive to acquire nuclear weapons. But as it did with the Soviet Union and China before, America can contain and deter Iran's mullahs and their nuclear leverage..."

5.) "The nature of the North Korea crisis makes the Bush doctrine inoperative. The region is such a tinderbox that military action taken against N. Korea could lead to a full-blown conflagration... "

6.) "A political and intelligence farce, a diplomatic disaster, a human tragedy, and now, a growing quagmire."

7.) "American power was vital to the victory of freedom over totalitarianism..."

8.) "The US must march to the beat of its own drum, but its power is sapped when it marches alone... "

9.) "The US should not apologize for spreading American values around the globe, but its imperial behavior helped inspire the terrible Sept. 11 attacks..."

10.) "President George W. Bush rightly made the nation's security his No. 1 priority after 9/11...."

The last one was the most viable, I actually just really think he's spending the money in the wrong places.

<center>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/silera/files/Silera/sig4.gif
AND WHAT?</center>

DarkHippie

10-10-2003, 01:37 PM

Liberals.

Are wary of American arrogance and hypocrisy
Trace much of today's anti-American hatred to previous US foreign policies.
Believe political solutions are inherently superior to military solutions
Believe the US is morally bound to intervene in humanitarian crises
Oppose American imperialism
Support international law, alliances, and agreements
Encourage US participation in the UN
Believe US economic policies must help lift up the world's poor
Historical liberal: President Woodrow Wilson

Modern liberal: President Jimmy Carter

<IMG SRC=http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/darkhippie2.gif>
<marquee>"Last night I went running through the screen door of discression, for I woke up from a nightmare that I could not stand to see. You were a-wandering out on the hills of Iowa and you were not thinking of me." Dar Williams "Traveling III (Iowa)"</marquee>

reeshy

10-10-2003, 01:46 PM

Isolationist!!!!!!

Fuck the rest of the world!!!!!

<IMG SRC=http://www.freedonia.com/panic/elvis/fat_elvis_twirl.gif>

Snoogans

10-10-2003, 01:50 PM

im an isolationalist liberal most closely related to bat buchannon of the modern day

http://wnewsgirl.homestead.com/files/Snoogans.jpg
Silent Bob you one rude motherfucker, she like to go down on you, suck you. line up 2 other guys and make like a circus seal

eww you fuckin faggots, i hate guys, i LOOOOVE WOMEN!

Bill From Yorktown

10-10-2003, 01:51 PM

I'm not going to answer what the quiz said at this time - my only comment is if we find a way to rid outselves of the dependancy on foreign oil, and the alliances we make over it, our foreign policy will radically change.

<IMG SRC="http://hometown.aol.com/billb914/sigpic.gif">

Snoogans

10-10-2003, 01:55 PM

if we suck Iraq dry that Oil thing wont be so bad.

aslo, if we stopped being sissies and tapped into alaska's oil reserves or even better and less damaging, the natural gas reserves, we would take that dependence down real quick

http://wnewsgirl.homestead.com/files/Snoogans.jpg
Silent Bob you one rude motherfucker, she like to go down on you, suck you. line up 2 other guys and make like a circus seal

eww you fuckin faggots, i hate guys, i LOOOOVE WOMEN!

El Mudo

10-10-2003, 08:25 PM

US policy in the Korean peninsula is outdated. Why should US troops be sitting ducks for Kim Jong Il's million-man army and nuclear threats? After 50 years, it's time South Korea protected itself. There's no point in "talking" with N. Korea, and all-out war is unthinkable. The US must move its troops out of the demilitarized zone.

I couldn't agree with this more... the South Koreans don't even want us there, so why should we stay? I bet they'd want us back super fast when about 5 minutes after we left the North Koreans came right over the border....

http://home.t-online.de/home/a.peichl/shield.gif
Representin' for the Maryland District of RAIDER NATION

CaptClown

10-10-2003, 08:52 PM

Realist

Director of the C.Y.A. Society.
Field Marshal of the K.I.S.S. Army

http://www.nudeafrica.com/discus/messages/45722/3068438.gif

Death Metal Moe

10-11-2003, 08:13 PM

Based on your answers, you are most likely a neoconservative

Neoconservatives...

-Want the US to be the world's unchallenged superpower
-Share unwavering support for Israel
-Support American unilateral action
-Support preemptive strikes to remove perceived threats to US security
-Promote the development of an American empire
-Equate American power with the potential for world peace
-Seek to democratize the Arab world
-Push regime change in states deemed threats to the US or its allies

Historical neoconservative: President Teddy Roosevelt

Modern neoconservative: President Ronald Reagan

What do I win?

<IMG SRC=http://unhallowed.com/sigs/dmkh.gif>
<A HREF="http://www.unhallowed.com">www.unhallowed.com</A>
<strike>Your Mother</strike>
<marquee behavior=alternate>EMFA</marquee>

FUNKMAN

10-11-2003, 08:18 PM

i'm a Conservative... i conserved my energy by not reading and answering that 'long ass' quiz...

sorry! i'ts late and i'm just tired...

<img src="http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/funkman.gif">

sig by 'soontobetvstar' ADF

DarkHippie

10-12-2003, 06:31 AM

Historical neoconservative
Isn't this an oxymoron?

<IMG SRC=http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/darkhippie2.gif>
<marquee>"Last night I went running through the screen door of discression, for I woke up from a nightmare that I could not stand to see. You were a-wandering out on the hills of Iowa and you were not thinking of me." Dar Williams "Traveling III (Iowa)"</marquee>

high fly

10-14-2003, 03:14 PM

Good one, DARK.

I'm a realist.
Harumph.

It appears to me that the neo-cons are not fiscally conservative, but wildly liberal in the way they throw responsibility to the wind and spend spend spend, without giving an account of where the money is going to come from to pay for it all.
A hallmark of recent Republican administrations is record debt.

They also are for big government.
Another hallmark of recent Republican administrations is the government always gets more bloated and swells to record size when they are in power.
You can also count on Republican economic policies to backfire. They never deliver as promised.
They've given us the last 4 recessions.

"and they ask me why I drink"

This message was edited by high fly on 10-14-03 @ 7:24 PM

shamus mcfitzy

10-14-2003, 11:03 PM

Liberal
Liberals.

* Are wary of American arrogance and hypocrisy
* Trace much of today's anti-American hatred to previous US foreign policies.
* Believe political solutions are inherently superior to military solutions
* Believe the US is morally bound to intervene in humanitarian crises
* Oppose American imperialism
* Support international law, alliances, and agreements
* Encourage US participation in the UN
* Believe US economic policies must help lift up the world's poor

Historical liberal: President Woodrow Wilson
Modern liberal: President Jimmy Carter

EDIT: not only am I a dirty liberal, I am also an illiterate imcompetent. That's right, AN incompetent!!!

I guess the test really is more for people on the right than it is for the left. I guess isolationist is kind of the second most liberal title in the test. It was impossible for me to effectively take the test because I oppose all the answers for #7 and #8. The test assumes that the USSR was ideologically bad and that the US is and will always be king of the world.

I like how Woodrow Wilson is a "liberal". Throwing socialists in jail is quite liberal (yeah I know what they mean but still).

This message was edited by shamus mcfitzy on 10-15-03 @ 3:16 AM

nellie

10-15-2003, 06:34 AM

Isolationist

The term isolationist is most often used negatively; few people who share its beliefs use it to describe their own foreign policy perspective. They believe in "America first." For them, national sovereignty trumps international relations. Many unions, libertarians, and anti-globalization protesters share isolationist tenets.

Isolationists.

Are wary of US involvement in the United Nations
Oppose international law, alliances, and agreements
Believe the US should not act as a global cop
Support trade practices that protect American workers
Oppose liberal immigration
Oppose American imperialism
Desire to preserve what they see as America's national identity and character
Historical isolationist: President Calvin Coolidge

Modern isolationist: Author/Commentator Pat Buchanan

Thanks Fallon :)
<IMG SRC=http://home.comcast.net/~wwfallon/RFnetNellie.jpg>
Seabreaze~52 Elementalist, Maredivita~40 Paladin, Willowflower~35 Ranger on Fennin Ro

high fly

10-15-2003, 02:18 PM

...assumes the USSR was ideologically bad

Isn't that like "assuming" the sun will come up tomorrow?
If you care to debate the issue, I'm ready to use you for toilet paper in a debate.

" and they ask me why I drink"

shamus mcfitzy

10-15-2003, 02:27 PM

i mean that Socialism is not bad, the USSR obviously is. The Soviets had the right idea but they rushed through on it. Socialism would take about a century to actually suceed before a country can move onto all-out Communism. They gave it no time to develop. I understand the US' efforts against the USSR, I however dislike those incompetents who then automatically say that Communism is "bad" because the US was a better alternative. The USSR was ultimately not Communist, because it should've went through a stage of Socialism. Ask Karl Marx, or even his brother Groucho.

If you care to debate the issue, I'm ready to use you for toilet paper in a debate.

and why so angry? Man i don't understand why you would've all of a sudden turned on me. Chill out brothaman :)

This message was edited by shamus mcfitzy on 10-15-03 @ 6:30 PM

HBox

10-15-2003, 02:39 PM

The Soviets had the right idea but they rushed through on it.

http://www.colosscollect.com/mags/si/si960520.jpg

http://members.aol.com/joepersico/myhomepage/sig1.jpg?mtbrand=AOL_US

high fly

10-15-2003, 02:46 PM

The Soviets had the right idea

Keep on giving me material.

SHAMUS, I'm not angry.

" and they ask me why I drink"

This message was edited by high fly on 10-15-03 @ 6:49 PM

shamus mcfitzy

10-15-2003, 02:56 PM

if it's material, what is it material for exactly? You can't debate this because there is nothing to debate. There has never been a truly democratic socialist country, especially a major one. Either try to make a point or don't make 4 word posts that say nothing. Or actually I guess you can make such posts, but don't expect me to answer them.

high fly

10-15-2003, 03:15 PM

There has never been a truly democratic socialist country

Of course not.
This is no excuse for thinking a purely communist state would ever work any better than the disaster occurred in EVERY country that has tried it.
Oh sure, it all looks great on paper when one is isolated in academia, but when one gets out in the real world and tries to put that garbage into practice, human nature becomes a factor and it just doesn't work.
You are trying to defend the ideological system behind the deaths of over 100,000,000 people in about a 70 year time span.

" and they ask me why I drink"

shamus mcfitzy

10-15-2003, 03:30 PM

This is no excuse for thinking a purely communist state would ever work any better than the disaster occurred in EVERY country that has tried it.
Oh sure, it all looks great on paper when one is isolated in academia, but when one gets out in the real world and tries to put that garbage into practice, human nature becomes a factor and it just doesn't work.
You are trying to defend the ideological system behind the deaths of over 100,000,000 people in about a 70 year time span.

1) I did not grow up in "academia", I grew up in Canarsie. I've seen poverty and have grown up in it and know that the rich might be able to do something to "help out"

2) Communism is different from Socialism. I think that Democratic Socialism can work with the conditions I said before.

3) human nature is based on a human's surroundings. Therefore 100 years is more than sufficient to change this tendency.

4) To think that Communism killed millions and not Stalin and Lenin is ridiculous. And once again i'm not defending Communism as we know it, I'm defending Communism as it was meant to be and then only after Socialism can take hold for a while.

high fly

10-15-2003, 04:05 PM

(snicker)

Oh, where to begin? OK, first you disagreed with the test's assumption that the USSR was bad, then went on to say "the Soviets had the right idea" and then went on to say that the USSR was not communist.
WRONG WRONG WRONG!
The Soviet Union was indeed communist and was a disaster from the beginning to the end.
Communism failed miserably wherever it was tried.

I didn't say you grew up in academia, but having heard arguments like yours around the dorm, I used it and the "looks great on paper" statements to illustrate a point. The point was the vast difference between theory and application. All you've got is theory.
I'm telling you what happens when humans try to put that theory into practice, and 100 years of coercion isn't going to change anything.
You will find that those countries that provide the most in freedom and economic opportunity for their citizens are those which have consistently moved as far from what you dream would work as possible.

To think communism killed millions and not Stalin and Lenin is ridiculous

What is ridiculous is to think that the over 100,000,000 deaths that I spoke of were killed by Stalin and Lenin.
That is the number killed in ALL countries that tried communism.
And oh yes, they also called it socialism and those 100,000,000 people are just as dead.
Marx/Leninism is the ideological system of those who caused those deaths and a large proportion of those deaths occurred as that system was put in place.

" and they ask me why I drink"

This message was edited by high fly on 10-15-03 @ 8:21 PM

high fly

10-15-2003, 04:18 PM

And before you go much further in this fantasy, I strongly suggest you read The Black Book of Communism by Stephane Courtois, et al.
It came out a few years ago and can be found in a decent public library or at a big bookstore like a Barnes & Noble or Borders.
It'll run you about $40 for hardcover (I don't buy paperbacks) but it is authoritative and well worth the money.

" and they ask me why I drink"

This message was edited by high fly on 10-15-03 @ 8:19 PM

shamus mcfitzy

10-15-2003, 04:30 PM

ok this is where we hit the wall on this debate. Because you're not coming up with anything new and I honestly can't come up with anything new. Read the Communist Manifesto and you realize that Russia and China were/are not doing what Marx and Engels set out.

I was unclear originally and for that I apologize. I think the USSR was bad ideologically, but that is because they were not Socialist, and therefore not Communist. Just because something is called Socialist, it doesn't mean that it is. Obviously the USSR and China would want to call it something that seemed legit.

I meant that the USSR was "right" in that they were trying to make Communism work, even if they were confused in that they were not actually running a Communist system. That last sentence is an opinion obviously. Just as your "I'm telling you what happens when humans try to put that theory into practice, and 100 years of coercion isn't going to change anything." is an opnion in that there is no way to prove it.

You will find that those countries that provide the most in freedom and economic opportunity for their citizens are those which have consistently moved as far from what you dream would work as possible.

freedom and economic freedom can be totally different things. A poor person has no economic freedom when it comes to the fact that incompetent heirs can inherit money, and therefore the economic freedom that the poor don't have. That's just an example. I don't really make as good a case as Marx obviously, so maybe you should read that.

I think our argument should be done. We're left with only opnions. You're not changing mine, and i'm not changing yours.

No hard feelings hopefully

Read some Bertell Ollman, for example How 2 Take an Exam...& Remake the World

This message was edited by shamus mcfitzy on 10-15-03 @ 8:35 PM

high fly

10-15-2003, 04:44 PM

Incompetent (or competent) heirs don't inherit money belonging to poor people, generally. They inherit money from parents with (shocker!) money.

I have read The Communist Manifesto as well as most of the constitution the Soviet Union started out with. Neither has done humanity a bit of good and are worth less than the paper they are printed on.

While we both have included opinions, I have included one mutha of a set of facts that cannot be denied--- that whenever and wherever communism has been tried, it has led to wide scale death and destruction (often including cannibalism). Many different versions have been tried but the result is the same.

Think about it,

OVER 100 MILLION DEAD

No hard feelings at all. Check out the book, man.

" and they ask me why I drink"

shamus mcfitzy

10-15-2003, 04:57 PM

1) Well do incompetent people really have a right to money that they didn't earn? I don't think so, because I think the individual should be earning his/her money (and then being responsible, help those who he considers his countrymen). That is obviously an opinion you don't hold and therefore we'll differ on this issue.

2) There was widespread death because the leaders of those "Communist" nations intended there to be death. There hasn't ever really been a "Marxist" country in that no one has ever had the circumstances necessary to implement one. People were killed in Russia because there obviously opposistion to Stalin's system (and rightfully so). A country's people need to want socialism in order for it to work and then there also needs to be a rightful socialist leader.

I've heard of that book. I'll probably read it when I have time (after the semester ends probably) now. You should probably read Ollman, he obviously says things much better than I can.

sr71blackbird

10-15-2003, 05:29 PM

Im a Neoconservative!!!

<center>
http://members.aol.com/canofsoup15/images/sr71-sig.gif </center>

<center>Many Thanks Soup!</center>

<center><strike>Folgers and Lava</strike></B.</center>

El Mudo

10-15-2003, 06:28 PM

1) I did not grow up in "academia", I grew up in Canarsie. I've seen poverty and have grown up in it and know that the rich might be able to do something to "help out"

So because some have and some don't have, then none should have?

Why all the hate on rich people? Most of themEARNED IT by W0RKING

http://home.t-online.de/home/a.peichl/shield.gif
Representin' for the Maryland District of RAIDER NATION

high fly

10-16-2003, 03:11 PM

SHAMUS-1) you spoke earlier of incompetent heirs, so I guess that's who you're asking about.
If a person wants to leave money in their will, or simply gives money to an incompetent, their dog, a worthless charity, whatever, that is their right.
Are you advocating a "means test" for inheriting money?
If I have an incompetent child and leave him money in my will, who are you to say someone else should get it?
I am a free man in a free society and I will give my money to who I damned well please and if Mr. Marx or Mr. Engels doesn't like it, they can shove a broken Coke bottle up their ass.
The way wealth is viewed in Marxism is unconnected with reality. That whole "money is theft" bit is simply a pile of horseshit. There is little, if any understanding of the fact that wealth is created all the time and the ones who create it have a right to it.
I, for example, do fine art. I take a few dollars worth of paint and a few more dollars worth of canvas and produce a work worth hundreds of dollars. Under Marxism, that money isn't mine.

2)Over 100 million people ain't gonna fuck again because Marx/Engels didn't figure on what would happen when their principles were applied by rather fallible men. EVERY time it was tried, it failed miserably. Many variations were tried in many different societies under many different conditions and the results were always the same: Death, misery, wasted natural resources, famine, mass murder.
Look, every time you put 2 parts hydrogen together with one part oxygen, you get water. Just like every time Marxism is tried, you get the same results over and over and over and over and over again.
There is a pattern here.
Sorry you've missed it.
What you haven't figured out is that Marx & Engels were just plain wrong.
It's as simple as that.
They missed that people like Lenin, Stalin, Mao, etc. would rise to the top under their system. They were wrong to think that greed and thirst for power could be somehow bred out of people by the experience of a "worker's paradise."
They were wrong to say that the most advanced capitalist societies would be the sites of their dream of workers rising up to throw off the shackles of capitalism and institute Marxism. Large chunks of their works were devoted to saying how this would occur.
It didn't. They were wrong.
They were also wrong in their predictions of howlabor/management relations would progress.
They completely missed the labor union movement which won for workers what Marx/Engels said would have to be taken by revolution.
There are other areas where they were wrong, these are just a few

And falling back on that "a pure Marxist state has never been tried" argument just doesn't work.
Logically, the further one got from capitalism and the closer one got to"pure Marxism", the better things should be, right?
Well?.
Face up to reality, dude. When theories don't work in practice, you've got to shitcan the theories.

" and they ask me why I drink"

This message was edited by high fly on 10-16-03 @ 7:22 PM

shamus mcfitzy

10-19-2003, 11:25 PM

Why all the hate on rich people? Most of themEARNED IT by W0RKING

well i don't think anyone can say that. I'm not saying some people don't deserve their money, because I think that some people earn their money. But I would not say that "most" of the rich have earned their money at all. I don't consider working paying someone to make more wealth for you, as capitalism works in its crudest sense. In that sense I do not believe that rich people earn their money in general. Most wealth can be traced back to a lower class producing it and an upper class stealing/harnessing it. The rich, in general, now have an unfair advantage over the poor, and there's nothing that the poor can do about it. We'd like to think of ourselves as a land of oppurtunity because that has been in our history and that is re-enforced in our culture. Honestly though, there aren't all that many people making it big when they started out with little. The country has evolved into a totally upper-class dominated one, where there really isn't wiggle room for even 1% of its suffering citizens. I don't think there is a "middle class" anymore. That's a way of saying "i'm not rich, but I don't consider myself poor." People have accepted their lives because they have something much worse to compare themselves to. That's just one of the reasons that capitalism is able to dominate people in this country.

When I talk of socialism I'm talking more in a global sense. I think that there could be a truly socialist regime in another country. I obviously know that the US' people are nowhere near ready to actually look out for a universal good. A lot of Americans' thought about capitalism and socialism is dominated by an American attitude. "We're a superpower so we don't need to worry about anyone else" is a lot like "we're well off so we don't need to worry about anyone else", isn't it? I'm not going to say that I'm not biased on the issue because I grew up in a poor and black neighborhood, but I don't think any American can honestly deny that they have a certain fondness of capitalism because they grew up with it as the good side of a "good vs. evil" conflict.

and most of high fly's post about Marxism not being able to work because it hasn't yet ("What you haven't figured out is that Marx & Engels were just plain wrong.") can be reversed to say that Marxism can't have possibly worked because it hasn't been implemented yet.

And I'd like to point out that I believe that the USSR's attempt at Marxism was not "closer" to Marxism than capitalism in many respects. In the USSR there was a still a minority who ruled with iron fists and held down others, just like in this country with our "upper class". In a Marxist society there isn't a need to crush others because there is an assumed agreement between people that they are doing what is right. And those that don't like the results should leave.

Although Stalin was an evil dictator who "purged" his people and definitely was not engaged in a war of any kind, I would assume that in order to achieve a pure Marxist society there would have to be a war or conflict that would unite people under Marxism. If 1% of a population for example hinders the progress of a country into Marxism, I believe that a government would have the right to remove those people for the sake of the other 99%.

That's how I feel high fly. We won't ever see eye to eye on economic issues because we think on totally different planes. You probably feel a devotion to this country, whereas I don't. I feel as devoted to those in Greece (as an example) as I do to "my fellow Americans". I don't think we can honestly do justice to the debate between capitalism and socialism when it still hasn't been effectively debated by anyone yet.

This message was edited by shamus mcfitzy on 10-20-03 @ 3:42 AM

TheMojoPin

10-20-2003, 07:10 AM

I don't think there is a "middle class" anymore.

Then what the fuck am I?

Look, I make about 30k a year. Sure, I'm nowhere near rich, but I can pay my bills, have my own house, car, food, etc., so I'm clearly not poor. How am I NOT middle class?

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You might tell some lies about the good times we've had/But I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

TooCute

10-20-2003, 08:36 AM

I make about 15K a year, and there's no way I could pay
all my bills and buy food if I didn't have a loan. Nevermind I
am not even paying my own rent. What does that make
me?

Oh yeah. A graduate student.

This message was edited by TooCute on 10-20-03 @ 12:37 PM

high fly

10-20-2003, 11:29 AM

Ok, let my stop shaking my head ruefully and try to help poor SHAMUS.

Perhaps you have heard in war that the best of plans don't survive the first shot. In a sense, this is true, as nothing goes precisely as one plans. Equipment breaks down, supplies get mixed up, orders that seem clear to some are misinterpreted by others. The enemy does things you hadn't counted on, they have forces where you didn't expect them, they react to your moves in ways you hadn't counted on, and so on.
The same thing happens in sports.
What I am getting at is there is a sort of filter between theory or plans and the actual implementation of that theory or those plans by humans who do not always act predictably or logically or even in their best interest always.

This 'filter' if you will, has come into play with Marxism. Over and over and over again it has been tried by many different people in many different societies in many different parts of the globe.
With all of these attempts, one can see that when Marxism is attempted, certain consistent results occur.
You can bet that those same results will occur the next time it is tried.
One of the greatest things that George Washington did was to step down from the Presidency.
At that time, he was so popular and admired, many wanted him to continue serving, but he stepped down, giving a great example for others to follow.
People like that don't rise to the top of Marxist movements.
Marxist movements everywhere on the globe consistently produce leaders of the cruel dictator- type.
Again, should Marxism be tried somewhere else, you can bet on it being led by a cruel dictator.

Happens every time.

It wasn't just Stalin, but everywhere,---the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, Viet Nam, North Korea, Albania, Yugoslavia, anywhere Marxism was tried, a consistent pattern of results emerged.
It is disgusting that you are so callous to so many many millions of people starved by politically induced famines by your precious Marxists that drove people to cannabilism.

It is bizarre to see you ignore a clear pattern in history in order to cling to this discredited theory.
You insist on being blind to facts.

SHAMUS, the reason we won't agree is because I have cold hard facts and many many examples from history to support my position and you have nothing more than a daydream of a discredited theory.

Is that a white flag I see over your ramparts?

" and they ask me why I drink"

shamus mcfitzy

10-20-2003, 06:21 PM

Look, I make about 30k a year.

the way i would define a middle class is those who make around the average salary of a country's citizens. 30K is much less than the average when you account for the 1% wealthiest who are making millions upon millions. Of course you can live on 30K, but why should you when you are a law-abiding citizen who is as much of/more of a productive member of society than a CEO who is milking the work of his subordinates. I live comfortably too, and I'm not out to better my lot, it's the struggling families and their offspring who I've lived around that I worry about because they will most likely only get poorer.

It wasn't just Stalin, but everywhere,---the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, Viet Nam, North Korea, Albania, Yugoslavia, anywhere Marxism was tried, a consistent pattern of results emerged.
It is disgusting that you are so callous to so many many millions of people starved by politically induced famines by your precious Marxists that drove people to cannabilism.

well STALIN WAS NOT A MARXIST. I'd like to think that's the last time I'll have to say that. He thought he was, and he may have wanted people to believe he was a Marxist, but he wasn't one. That goes for China, Cuba, Vietnam, and North Korea too. I define a Marxist as one who follows Marx's pholosophies, not one who says they do.

There haven't been many Marxist leaders because, and I'm the first to admit, people are prone to being selfish. That's NOW. That's why I say a 100 years need to pass before a socialist democracy can even try to become a communist nation. Unfortunately, people tend to like dictators. They cling to what they know, and therefore would probably only leave in the same leader for many years. That's why I think Washington is a novel example because he exemplified a quality (not political beliefs, but his qualities as a man obviously) that a socialist leader should have, in that he stepped down as leader. Marxists inherently don't believe in being dictators. That's what takes away from your argument. A Marxist is what Marx says he/she is, not what a man/woman calls him/herself.

Oh and Tito wasn't that bad, you've fell for American propaganda with that one. Tito was a pretty good leader, and that's what scared America. A good socialist leader=a big American problem.

And I don't need facts to support my opinion by the way. You can't discredit a political ideology because as far as I can tell history doesn't stop. No one would have thought that another right-wing regime would come into power and lead Germany back to prominence 20 years after they were soundly defeated in WWI.

You can't say that something is dead in politics because people change throughout history. The progression from large empires to smaller nation-state monarchies to democracies actually supports a more Marxist trend. I don't know how you can ignore that.

and high fly, don't belittle me in a thread and try to treat me nicely in a PM. I thought we had agreed to disagree a week ago when you sent me that nice PM, and then I look back at this thread to see if someone else had decided to question me about what I mean, and I find that you had just done what seemed "backstabbing" to me. So please, stick to either all-out opposing me or engaging in polite debate.
And saying the same thing four times doesn't mean you just came up with 4 "facts".

high fly

10-21-2003, 04:45 PM

SHAMUS, sorry man, I didn't mean to belittle you, that's just the way I talk sometimes.
I'm just trying to get you to see what misery Marxists of all stripes have brought on the world. No matter what degree they deviated from what Marx/Engels set forth, they still were ideologically on that end of the spectrum and were following some, if not all, of the Marxist ideology.

We're not going to see a "pure" Marxist government any more than the U.S. will ever have a "pure" federal republic.

Oh, and Tito wasn't that bad....

Perhaps you missed the fate of the soldiers and policemen who fought the Germans in WWII under Pavelic. At the end of the war, Tito slaughtered as many as 30,000 of them. He also slaughtered those who opposed Hitler and fought under Mihailovic as well.

"Rarely in the course of history has the arrival of a new regime been preceeded by a bloodbath on the scale of the one seen in Yugoslavia where out of a population of 15.5 million, 1 million people died."

That's not U.S. propaganda, but a quote from The Black Book of Communism, a book you will find not only enlightening, but authoritative.

I don't need facts to support my opinion

(snicker, snort) You sure you don't want to take that one back?

I've shown you where M/E were dead wrong in how Marxism would develope.
I've given you a list of examples where it was tried and failed miserably every time.
I've described how even though they might have started out with good intentions, Marxist movements invariably have bloodthirsty leaders emerge.
I fail to understand how you fail to see the pattern.
It just hasn't worked, my friend.

I have also suffered the ignominy of being accused in this discussion of sounding like a Republican! Uggh!
Is this some sort of devious trick by you to make me look bad?

I'll take the opportunity to use what I think is a good line again:

THANKS TO WHAT KARL MARX SET IN MOTION, OVER 100 MILLION PEOPLE AIN'T GONNA FUCK AGAIN!

" and they ask me why I drink"

This message was edited by high fly on 10-21-03 @ 8:47 PM

shamus mcfitzy

10-21-2003, 06:58 PM

I don't need facts to support my opinion

(snicker, snort) You sure you don't want to take that one back?

well my opinion on Marxism can't be supported by facts. Marxism hasn't yet seen the conditions necessary for success. Therefore, I don't need and couldn't find facts to support true Marxism if I wanted to.

And if anything, the labor union movement set Marx and Engels' theories back because it enabled the upper class to keep control over the lower working class. By giving workers shorter hours and larger wages (among other things), they were tricked into thinking that they had somehow won a victory, when honestly by stopping protests they were merely enabling the upper class to keep them as subordinates. At a time when a revolution could have occured (strong socialist leaders such as Debs and actual discontent in workers, but obviously still slim chance obviously), workers instead chose to back down and give up.

And Hinckley shot Reagan for Jodie Foster. That doesn't mean he was a Fosterist........ok that's a bad example but it kinda supports my point.

HBox

10-21-2003, 07:00 PM

This isn't ever going to end, is it?

http://members.aol.com/joepersico/myhomepage/sig1.jpg?mtbrand=AOL_US

Cybersoldier

10-21-2003, 07:16 PM

Liberal

Liberals.

Are wary of American arrogance and hypocrisy
Trace much of today's anti-American hatred to previous US foreign policies.
Believe political solutions are inherently superior to military solutions
Believe the US is morally bound to intervene in humanitarian crises
Oppose American imperialism
Support international law, alliances, and agreements
Encourage US participation in the UN
Believe US economic policies must help lift up the world's poor
Historical liberal: President Woodrow Wilson

Modern liberal: President Jimmy Carter

<IMG SRC="http://publish.hometown.aol.com/cybersoldiernyc/myhomepage/cybersoldier.gif?mtbrand=AOL_US">

This message was edited by Cybersoldier on 10-21-03 @ 11:18 PM

Cybersoldier

10-21-2003, 07:17 PM

sorry for the double post
<IMG SRC="http://publish.hometown.aol.com/cybersoldiernyc/myhomepage/cybersoldier.gif?mtbrand=AOL_US">

This message was edited by Cybersoldier on 10-21-03 @ 11:17 PM

TheMojoPin

10-21-2003, 07:20 PM

Historical liberal: President Woodrow Wilson

Who came up with THAT one? Wrongy Wrongerton from the wrong side of the tracks in Wrongville?

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You might tell some lies about the good times we've had/But I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

shamus mcfitzy

10-21-2003, 07:28 PM

that's what I said at the end of the original "pro-USSR" post.

and i'd like it to end, but high fly keeps saying the things.

high fly

10-22-2003, 01:03 PM

my opinion on Marxism can't be supported by facts

Your sword, sir shall be nicely displayed over my mantlepiece.

Just for the heck of it, since I've got

The Black Book of Communism out, here's your quote:

Tito wasn't that bad

and one from the book, talking about the system of concentration camps that your boy Tito set up:
"Torture was the daily bread of the internees. Among the methods was one known simply as "the bucket," which forced a prisoner's head into a receptacle filled with excrement..."
This, by the way, is on page 425. It goes on to describe how the persecution of communists by fellow communists in Yugoslavia "...was probably one of the most massive persecution movements that Europe had yet witnessed, including those of the Soviet Union from the 1920s to the 1940s, Germany in the 1930s, and the repression of Communists during the Nazi occupation. What happened in Yugoslavia was a truly immense phenomenon..."

" and they ask me why I drink"

shamus mcfitzy

10-22-2003, 11:08 PM

Can you actually give me facts that say a pure Marxist regime could not work? Facts that actually support that. Not "well it hasn't happened yet". That's all I'm saying. At this point I find myself arguing beliefs that aren't even mine. I don't even believe in pure Marxism or that a true Marxist state will ever exist, I'm merely shocked at how you think you're making a point on that issue. That you actually believe that saying something hasn't happened means that it can never happen. Or that you believe that The Black Book of Communism is an impartial source.

and the US also set up internment camps, and although I'm not sure, I believe a majority of Tito's camp internees were soldiers or "traitors" to his regime in Yugoslavia. I oppose those things, just saying that that is more legitimate than jailing and killing civilians.

high fly

10-23-2003, 11:42 AM

(stops desparate massaging of the temples and eye-rolling at the ceiling)

Marxists have tried many, many times, in many many different places, in many different societies under many different conditions, to establish a Marxist state.
When going from the theoretical to the practical, there has been a sort of deviation from some of what Marx/Engels put forth. The reason for this is the "filter" I spoke of in an earlier post.
The results have been a surprisingly consistent pattern.
This pattern leads one to see that future attempts should have the same results.
These examples of failure over a long period of time in so many different environments make up a set of facts that you don't seem to be able to counter with any examples of your own, indeed you have admitted as much.
I'm waiting for you to take on my point about creating wealth where I used as an example me painting a picture.
Marx was wrong on money being theft, he was wrong on what would happen between labor and management, he was wrong on what would happen when some, if not all of his ideas were employed, he was wrong on where socialism would spring up, he was wrong on many fronts.

When I was in my teens and early 20s, I bought into the "radical chic" idea too. Oh sure, it was cool to sit around the dorm in political bull sessions and be the extreme leftist. One of the things which opened my eyes was the realization that those pretending to be proletarian were in fact elitist of the most odious sort.

Comparing the WWII internment camps with Tito's concentration camps is just plain gross.
Both were wrong, but to equate them is ridiculous.

The Black Book is a pretty impartial source. It is not a piece of U.S. government propaganda, it's not a right wing screed either. It is an extremely well researched book. Much of the information is from government archives of the former Soviet Union.
The authors are all highly respected european intellectuals, mostly from the left.
It catalogues not just the unspeakable violence visited upon humanity by those implementing Marxism as best they could, but also important is the similarity between dissimilar regimes.
The consistency in how torture, famine, massacres, mass deportations, terror, misery and squandered national resources occur with startling regularity every time it was tried is something you should not ignore.

You may keep your sidearms, but please, go peacefully.

" and they ask me why I drink"

This message was edited by high fly on 10-23-03 @ 3:46 PM

shamus mcfitzy

10-23-2003, 05:00 PM

Marx was wrong on money being theft, he was wrong on what would happen between labor and management, he was wrong on what would happen when some, if not all of his ideas were employed, he was wrong on where socialism would spring up, he was wrong on many fronts.

When I was in my teens and early 20s, I bought into the "radical chic" idea too. Oh sure, it was cool to sit around the dorm in political bull sessions and be the extreme leftist. One of the things which opened my eyes was the realization that those pretending to be proletarian were in fact elitist of the most odious sort.

ok I've been playing the devil's advocate a bit here so I really don't disagree with much of what you're saying anymore. I'm not a true Marxist because there's no place for a true Marxist in the world. I don't believe "money is theft" to any degree close to Marx, I'd merely like to see a better distribution of wealth, a progressive tax, free health care, etc. (I'll probably move to Canada). And Marx didn't obviously predict where his theories would take hold.

oh and don't think I even make my opinions known to anyone but you guys and my most intelligent friends really. I'm not going to deal with stupid people who can't even understand the difference between Communist and Socialist, let alone the USSR's "Communism" versus actual Communism. I'm not taking an extreme left position unless i'm talking to intelligent people who can at least somewhat understand what i'm saying.

and I think the title of Black Book implies a bias in its opinions. I don't doubt it is using facts, but Michael Moore generally uses facts too. There's just bias behind them. I will read the book, but somehow don't expect that I will find it completely impartial.

Well I don't know what you could've taken offense with now, so this should be done :)

oh and you still haven't said anything that proves a Marxist regime could never exist (and once again I don't think one will occur, I just realize that you never say never)

TheMojoPin

10-23-2003, 08:00 PM

but Michael Moore generally uses facts too

Hm. News to me.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You might tell some lies about the good times we've had/But I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

shamus mcfitzy

10-23-2003, 08:05 PM

Quote:
but Michael Moore generally uses facts too

Hm. News to me.

well sometimes

TheMojoPin

10-23-2003, 08:27 PM

Not lately.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You might tell some lies about the good times we've had/But I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

high fly

10-24-2003, 01:23 PM

Oh shit!
It was a trick! Dammit, I knew it!

Now I feel like Slim Pickens in Blazing Saddles when they realized they were in a fake version of that town, just before the dynamite went off.

I'm still claiming victory.

" and they ask me why I drink"

shamus mcfitzy

10-26-2003, 08:01 PM

yes obviously high fly wins. You've sucessfully won an endless debate. If you actually read my posts rather than just responding out of pure hate for Communism (which is justified I guess considering when you grew up) you'd realize that I stopped arguing for Communism and started arguing against your stupid debate tactics 5 days ago. You are basically arguing something that can't be argued for or against. I got that you don't like the way that "Communism" has manifested itself throughout history, but what you haven't been able to say is how Stalin or any of the other examples you've given are true Communists. You also haven't been able to "[prove] a Marxist regime could never exist" as I asked before.

And you might be right about Tito, I refuse to research anything. I definitely could've been wrong, I was under the impression Tito killed a lot of military personnel, not civilians. I'll even ignore the fact that the Black Book is inherently not an impartial source. If you can tell me how Stalin was implementing true Communism and how you can say that a truly Marxist regime can never exist, then you win. I don't understand what you were really arguing anyway. Try to put that in there too.

and i believe in socialism that's for sure. I never really defended Marxist theories at all in any of my posts so I never pretended to be a Marxist. I defended the fact that you would think that Marx was responsible for the "Communism" that evil dictators implemented. I don't think Marx was a bad guy, so I just don't think millions of deaths should be thrown at the foot of his grave.

i don't think i'll respond unless you've given out earth-shattering info that completely discredits Socialism/Communism/Marxism. But I might.......I get bored

This message was edited by shamus mcfitzy on 10-27-03 @ 12:06 AM

The Chairman

10-26-2003, 09:16 PM

Anarco-Capitalist Libertarian Athiest Existentialist

You are that rare individual who has an intellectual political and philosophical ideology that is beyond refute. Few people share its beliefs because they can be ignorant, uneducated, or stupid. Others can be smart, educated and well read, but wrong nevertheless.

Anarco-Capitalist Libertarian Athiest Existentialist:

* Know there is no God, Gods or afterlife. You die, you rot in the ground and become food for worms.
* Believe the doctrine of free will, as opposed to the doctrine of necessity.
* Believe in economic and social self-determination
* Believe that defense and law enforcement are the only things government should be involved in. Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations should be pursued while entangling alliances with none.
* Believe centralizing power in the hands of international politicians and bureaucrats is very dangerous.
* Believe that the government should leave people alone unless they are aggressing against someone, amd uniformly reject the modern regulatory state.
*Feel strongly about not limiting research and development in areas like genetic research, cloning, cryptography.
*Oppose gun control. Controlling guns limits the individual freedom of law-abiding citizens.
*Freedom of speech (as with any other kind of freedom) should be jealously guarded. Yet free speech also needs to be connected to private property. You can print whatever you want with your own printing press, but you shouldn't be able to force someone else to print what you want.
*A significant part of personal freedom is the ability to make decisions about your own body. All drugs should be legalized.
*Moral values must be freely chosen. If someone else doesn't agree with your morality, you may avoid them, argue with them, or verbally condemn them, but you should not physically control them.
*In order for an act to be a crime, someone must be harmed -- there must be a victim. Anything that's peaceful, voluntary, and honest should be tolerated regardless of whether we agree with it. Part of the price of our own freedom is allowing others to be free.

Historical: Thomas Jefferson, Henry David Thoreau
Modern: David Friedman

This poll is accurate. Pretty cool.

I assassin down the avenue.

2%