11 May 05
Originally posted by StarValleyWyClown.
Yea. That is why they called themselves the "United Soviet Socialist Republic". Not socialist. Geez. How did I miss that? USSR. Geez. I am such a dork. sorry I missed that.
Killed any babies today Redmike? that will reinforce your nepoleon complex and make you powerful in your own mind. Which ain't much. But What the hell. We all need a domain. ...[text shortened]... history. Unwilling to see the evil of forcing people to be "angels" when they are just chimps.
They were the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
The simplest of facts just pass you by, in your own demented little world.
11 May 05
2 edits
Originally posted by RedmikeWere we not arguing the content of the word "socialist" in their title?
Clown.
They were the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
The simplest of facts just pass you by, in your own demented little world.
USSR seems close enough.
They are and were the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
Did you notice that the word "Socialist" seems to contradict your rather baby like notion that 'They were not socialists'?
What were they then? Any clue? Just regular slave masters? Not really socialists at all?
You are a good one to talk of clowns. You have face paint and a silly french ass to go along with the title. I hardly claim your faggy right to be french. Real men just piss on clowns. Have a sprinkle.
11 May 05
Originally posted by StarValleyWyJust because they called themselves socialists doesn't mean they were.
Were we not arguing the content of the word "socialist" in their title?
USSR seems close enough.
They are and were the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
Did you notice that the word "Socialist" seems to contradict your rather baby like notion that 'They were not socialists'?
What were they then? Any clue?
Just because a nation calls itself 'united' doesn't mean it is so.
Just because a nation calls itself a 'democratic republic' doesn't make it so.
I don't think the USSR was socialist, and neither do I think the National Socialists in were socialists either.
You'll no doubt argue that they were, and that it was all my fault.
11 May 05
1 edit
Originally posted by RedmikeOh Gee! I wonder what it really meant then?
Just because they called themselves socialists doesn't mean they were.
<edit> your only fault Mike is the passion of youth. You need a bit of life. I will like you much better when you are fifty. Too bad I'll be dead then.
I was you. Believe it.
11 May 05
Originally posted by StarValleyWyIt means that, at some point in their history, they aspired to build socialism. They didn't get there, and they messed up in the process, but they held onto the aspiration, in the name of their state at least.
Oh Gee! I wonder what it really meant then?
<edit> your only fault Mike is the passion of youth. You need a bit of life. I will like you much better when you are fifty. Too bad I'll be dead then.
I was you. Believe it.
Is that really too hard to grasp?
And you have no idea how old I am. All you know about me is that I've currently got a lot less alcohol in my bloodstream than you have.
11 May 05
Originally posted by RedmikePssst!
It means that, at some point in their history, they aspired to build socialism. They didn't get there, and they messed up in the process, but they held onto the aspiration, in the name of their state at least.
Is that really too hard to grasp?
And you have no idea how old I am. All you know about me is that I've currently got a lot less alcohol in my bloodstream than you have.
Genius.
How are you going to change human nature from a predator who is greedy to a grazer who loves the herd?
Psst!
What do you think? Any ideas? You really must face this issue or face the complete, total melt down failure of all socilist states.
Well. Except for the inbread Swedes who are all first cousins. Did you know that the swedes were the first tribe of humans to recognize that their inbreeding was making them all idiots? They imported several thousand black slaves to solve that. Go figure. What a bunch of sweet hearts.
11 May 05
1 edit
Originally posted by StarValleyWySince when is it human nature to be greedy?
Pssst!
Genius.
How are you going to change human nature from a predator who is greedy to a grazer who loves the herd?
Psst!
What do you think? Any ideas? You really must face this issue or face the complete, total melt down ...[text shortened]... ack slaves to solve that. Go figure. What a bunch of sweet hearts.
Capitalism is just the currently predominant form of organisation in use by humanity. We've had other forms before, and we'll have other forms afterwards.
Capitalism is the only one which needs greed to survive, but we'll grow out of that - its just a phase we're going through.
Humans aren't naturally greedy.
Interesting change of subject, all the same.
11 May 05
Originally posted by RedmikeOh, gee. Let me think.
Since when is it human nature to be greedy?
.
Since we became able to walk?
Maybe just before that great event.
If humans are not greedy by nature, then why are there "Presidents, Vice Presidents, Secretaries, and Sergent At Arms" in virtually every organization of mankind?
The names may vary, but the concept is to establish a heirarchy that all the lessers will abide by. That is why I am not liked much. I recognize this simple fact... refuse the notion of "leader" and fight all you squirrels who insist on "following the leader".
11 May 05
Originally posted by AmauroteYou don't understand. You just had a wet dream and think you are having a child.
I understand, StarValley: you're an anarcho-communist. It all makes sense now.
How should we establish a government? My idea is to let people vote.
How would you do it?
How should we establish personal relationships? My idea is that we should. If they are personal, then no rules need apply.
How would you do it?
Come on genius. I have given seven direct and straight answers to your ZERO here. Stop trying to be so damned cute. It worked with your parents. But they are limited. You are their child after all.
11 May 05
1 edit
Originally posted by StarValleyWyYou mean you think hierarchy is detestable and yet you're quite happy to depute power to a political class? I know you're fond of these kinds of existential acte gratuites, but this seems a little...excessive.
You don't understand. You just had a wet dream and think you are having a child.
How should we establish a government? My idea is to let people vote.
How would you do it?
How should we establish personal relationships? My ide ...[text shortened]... is that we should. If they are personal, then no rules need apply.
I favour government on the basis of Parecon: each individual has influence over decisions to the extent to which he is affected by them. That knocks your sham conglomerate democracy into a cocked hat.
11 May 05
Originally posted by AmauroteNo. That is what YOU mean. You really must think people are stupid. Why did you try to put thoughts in their heads? Are you really that arrogant?
You mean you think hierarchy is detestable and yet you're quite happy to depute power to a political class? I know you're fond of these kinds of existential acte gratuites, but this seems a little...excessive.
I favour government on the basis of Parecon: each individual has influence over decisions to the extent to which he is affected by them. That knocks your sham conglomerate democracy into a cocked hat.
I think government is a farce. I think that people who need leaders are boobs.
You see the subtle difference between your inference and attempt at swaying people to your point as to my utterly rotten attitude?
Well. Cheer up. A bit of practice and you too will be capable of self generated thought! Look on the bright side. Errr... That is the side with all the light.
No reason. Just do it. The bright side must have something going for it. Everyone always seeks it out. Don't they?
11 May 05
2 edits
Originally posted by StarValleyWyCobblers - if you think government is a farce, why do you favour electing one?
No. That is what YOU mean. You really must think people are stupid. Why did you try to put thoughts in their heads? Are you really that arrogant?
I think government is a farce. I think that people who need leaders are boobs.
I don't think people are stupid at all. Parecon trusts people to make decisions for themselves; monopoly capitalism does not. If you want to make that the criterion of good government, the burden of proof lies with you.
11 May 05
Originally posted by AmauroteDid I say that?! Sorry. I meant to say that it is better to "Electrify" one. Sorry.
Cobblers - if you think government is a farce, why do you favour electing one?
I don't think people are stupid at all. Parecon trusts people to make decisions for themselves; monopoly capitalism does not. If you want to make that the criterion of good government, the burden of proof lies with you.
Well. "Good Government" seems a bit of an oxymoron. I'll humbly pass on that challenge. How 'bout I just try to justify bear attacks in Yellowstone? That seems a bit more reasonable.